On 05/02/14 17:56, Bordalejo, Barbara wrote:
> Dear James,
> When you write “even in a interpretative transcription,” are
> you suggesting that there are transcriptions that are not
> interpretive? How do you distinguish them?
Perhaps 'interpretative' isn't the right word. I mean a
transcription where we are prioritising the 'logical' structure
of the document over the physical one. I.e. transcriptions in the
<text> element. In the <sourceDoc> my understanding is that
we're transcribing structures on the page (zones/lines) without
providing interpretation. That is the distinction I meant.
> In my experience, you might try to preserve aspects of the
> document in your transcriptions or you might try to read the
> various texts within a document. Both of those acts are
> interpretive. What they interpret might be different things,
> but neither is more objective than the other. Or is there an
> underlying assumption that a transcription could ever be
> carried out without interpretation?
I think the assumption is that if you are merely recording some
<line>s on <surfaces> you are providing less interpretation and
being more 'objective' (if that is indeed the right word).
Determining what constitutes those lines, especially in modern
manuscripts, is certainly a form of interpretation. (But I think
less so than whether those lines are lines of verse, or contain
names, etc.) But that is my personal opinion and doesn't
necessarily reflect the Guidelines.
Dr James Cummings, [log in to unmask]
Academic IT Services, University of Oxford