LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for TEI-L Archives


TEI-L Archives

TEI-L Archives


TEI-L@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TEI-L Home

TEI-L Home

TEI-L  February 2015

TEI-L February 2015

Subject:

Re: Are "independent headers" a thing of the past?

From:

Piotr Bański <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Piotr Bański <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 23 Feb 2015 11:31:53 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (488 lines)

Hi Conal,

The question is different indeed, and I don't think it was in any way 
inappropriate to bring up the <facsimile> idea as a response to my 
mentioning <text>. I was just pointing out that out of these various 
strands, I can see a more or less coherent picture emerge. In the end, I 
have two answers to my technical questions (how to handle @mimeType 
sensibly, and later, how to satisfy the purely schema-based conditions 
on conformance).

The latter may even end up as a way for those who don't like the concept 
of independent headers to maintain that no such headers are allowed, and 
for me to have an independent header just by tacking a <facsimile> to it.

I'm grateful for your sharing the thought experiment -- my current 
questions arose in the context of a seminar on among others a mixture of 
DH-related philosophical issues and their possible expression in the 
TEI, taught by Wioletta Miskiewicz in Warsaw. Questions about the 
definition(s) of "text", "document" and "object of study" are very much 
in focus, so I think she will be delighted with this example and the 
questions that it generates.

Best regards,

   Piotr


On 23/02/15 02:31, Conal Tuohy wrote:
> Sorry for the repetition, then. I had seen that earlier thread and not
> actually realized its connection to this one. I'm sure Lou's example
> subconsciously helped me to come up with an identical example.
>
> However! It seems to me that the validity or otherwise of using a PDF as
> a facsimile of itself is a different question to the one raised in the
> other thread, which was about whether it could validly be used to
> declare the media type of a born-digital source document (a facility
> which is apparently missing from sourceDesc). The use of a PDF in a
> facsimile is not a claim that the PDF is the source object (though it
> might be). It simply claims that the facsimile PDF is a representation
> of the source object.
>
> As a thought experiment, take a PDF file, and print it to a virtual
> printer which produces PDF files. The second PDF is not identical to the
> first, but it is a representation of the first. Would such a PDF be
> philosophically acceptable as a facsimile? If so, why would the first
> PDF itself not be acceptable?
>
> On 23 February 2015 at 09:58, Piotr Bański <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>     Hello Conal,
>
>     Thanks, it's been brought up (in the thread on @mimeType), and may
>     actually do the thing nearly perfectly (modulo the issue of being an
>     object vs. representing that object that Lou mentions in his
>     message)[1].
>
>     Still, maybe that's roughly the direction to go to be able to eat
>     the cookie and have it...
>
>     Best,
>
>        Piotr
>
>     [1] Brace for a loooong link:
>     https://listserv.brown.edu/__archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=__ind1502&L=tei-l&F=&S=&X=__6EFBE6630D9C2C5BAE&Y=bansp%__40o2.pl&P=85152
>     <https://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1502&L=tei-l&F=&S=&X=6EFBE6630D9C2C5BAE&Y=bansp%40o2.pl&P=85152>
>
>
>     On 23/02/15 00:24, Conal Tuohy wrote:
>
>         Piotr, rather than using an "impoverished <text>", have you
>         considered a
>         minimal <facsimile>?
>
>         e.g.
>
>         <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/__ns/1.0
>         <http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0>">
>         <teiHeader>...</teiHeader>
>         <facsimile>
>         <media type="application/pdf" url="foo.pdf"/>
>         </facsimile>
>         </TEI>
>
>         On 23 February 2015 at 09:13, Piotr Bański <[log in to unmask]
>         <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>         <mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>> wrote:
>
>              Dear Lou,
>
>              I really like it when you talk history. Thanks!
>
>              About <ihs> as such I do not care, having the existing
>              well-maintained teiHeader and the power of ODD/RNG/XInclude to
>              customize it any which way I like. What I was concerned
>         with, having
>              read Fabio's reply in another thread (on @mimeType), was that
>              somehow, the TEI has rejected the *concept* of an independent
>              header, in favour of other existing schemas. Peter's message
>              suggesting that it may automatically be denied a stamp of
>              conformance has only added to my worries.[1]
>
>              Update: in the list's archive and on its way to my mailbox
>              eventually, I can see a reply from Fabio in which he
>         confirms this
>              point of view. I am very curious about the motivation for
>         that claim
>              and I am wondering if I have been misunderstood in my aims
>         -- so
>              here's a short statement of my intentions:
>
>              I do not claim that the TEI is there to eliminate all other
>              electronic formats for library records. I simply do a
>         TEI-oriented
>              project, part of which involves a preparation of a TEI header.
>              Currently, the header can only describe a text that has
>         been scanned
>              into a PDF. Eventually, my header will become the basis for
>         a header
>              that will accompany a digitised version of the text that's
>         currently
>              in the PDF format.[2]
>
>              There are several goals here, and some of them are
>         didactic, and
>              therefore I try very hard to hold my horses and stick to
>         the book as
>              much as I can, to make it easier for students and people
>         who will be
>              involved later in the process of conversion to TEI XML, to
>         follow
>              and understand, and be able to relate to other examples
>         that they
>              may encounter. I have even decided to use TEILite! :-)
>
>              It would be quite an interesting finding, in the process of
>         "going
>              by the book", to see that said book actually discourages
>         the very
>              thing that I try to achieve at this step, namely a header
>         that (out
>              of necessity) stands separately, -->just because it is
>         separate<--.
>              That's why I started this thread, somewhat intrigued about the
>              potential reasons for such a point of view that might have
>         escaped me.
>
>              My temporary conclusion is that there's still hope that in
>         preparing
>              and then describing my independent header to the students,
>         I will
>              not, for once, be a heretic. But, let's wait and see...
>
>              Best,
>
>                 P.
>
>              [1] Although in my case, there is a TEI element at the root all
>              right -- so in the shallowest sense, my independent header does
>              conform, because it consists of a <teiHeader> followed by an
>              impoverished <text>, both under <TEI>.
>
>              [2] And maybe even the same header will reference both the
>         PDF and
>              the TEI-fied text -- an idea that I have began to fancy
>         over the
>              last few days and that in some way goes back to my
>         presentation from
>              2009 at the digitisation-related TEI-MM. Hmm.
>
>
>
>              On 22/02/15 19:03, Lou Burnard wrote:
>
>                  Hi Piotr
>
>                  If you do a quick search through the archives, you will
>         find
>                  that the
>                  decision to abandon the "independent header" was quite
>         deliberate,
>                  nothing to do with conceit,  and followed quite a bit
>         of independent
>                  research. We seem to be weak on institutional memory,
>         so here's
>                  a brief
>                  summary of some of the salient events.
>
>                  In P4, there was a chapter which defined an
>         "independent header". It
>                  defined one element (<ihs>) which could be used (rather
>         than
>                  <TEI.2>) as
>                  the root element of an SGML dtd for documents
>         containing only
>                  <teiHeader> elements. It also contained some (lengthy)
>         discussion of
>                  mapping between elements of the header and other
>         library standards,
>                  notably MARC.
>
>                  Reviewing the components of P4, in April 2004, the
>         Metalanguage
>                  workgroup noted that the concept of "auxiliary DTD" is
>         no longer
>                  relevant in the P5 architecture, and that specifically
>         "The IHS
>                  is an
>                  artefact to enable a valid document consisting only of
>         headers,
>                  which
>                  could be accomplished in other ways."
>
>         [http://www.tei-c.org/____Activities/Workgroups/META/____mew07.xml
>         <http://www.tei-c.org/__Activities/Workgroups/META/__mew07.xml>
>
>         <http://www.tei-c.org/__Activities/Workgroups/META/__mew07.xml
>         <http://www.tei-c.org/Activities/Workgroups/META/mew07.xml>>] The
>                  "other
>                  ways" they had in mind were presumably defining an
>         appropriate
>                  ODD or
>                  embedding TEI Header elements inside a document in another
>                  namespace.
>
>                  The council meeting in July 2004
>
>         (http://www.tei-c.org/____Activities/Council/Meetings/____tcm12.xml
>         <http://www.tei-c.org/__Activities/Council/Meetings/__tcm12.xml>
>
>         <http://www.tei-c.org/__Activities/Council/Meetings/__tcm12.xml
>         <http://www.tei-c.org/Activities/Council/Meetings/tcm12.xml>>) notes
>                  concerns that the library-standards-mapping aspects of
>         the old
>                  chapter
>                  should not be lost, and that its material should be
>         reworked
>                  either as a
>                  new chapter or (as eventually happened) as a component
>         of the
>                  existing
>                  header chapter. [1]. No-one seems to have argued for
>         retaining an
>                  element like the old <ihs> in P5, and no serious use
>         case was
>                  proposed
>                  for it.
>
>                  Two members of the Libraries SIG, who were also members
>         of the
>                  Council,
>                  did start work on a revision of the old chapter in a bid to
>                  bring its
>                  recommendations on best practices for interoperability
>         up to
>                  date  and a
>                  draft of this document[2] was considered for inclusion
>         in P5.
>                  However,
>                  at the April 2007 Council meeting
>
>         (http://www.tei-c.org/____Activities/Council/Meetings/____tcm30.xml
>         <http://www.tei-c.org/__Activities/Council/Meetings/__tcm30.xml>
>
>         <http://www.tei-c.org/__Activities/Council/Meetings/__tcm30.xml
>         <http://www.tei-c.org/Activities/Council/Meetings/tcm30.xml>>)
>
>                  where the
>                  status of all P5 drafts chapters was reviewed, Council
>         felt the
>                  work was
>                  incomplete, probably out of scope for the Guidelines,
>         and better
>                  handled  by the Libraries community. [3]. Again, there
>         is no
>                  record of
>                  any proposal for a possible container element for a set of
>                  <teiHeader>
>                  elements.
>
>                  In February and March 2013, there was a brief
>         discussion of this
>                  "ghost"
>                  chapter on the Council mailing list, which reiterates
>         (most of) the
>                  history I have summarised above, and re-affirms that
>         the best way
>                  forward is to incorporate recommendations from the
>         Libraries
>                  community
>                  into the Header chapter. Kevin Hawkins concluded this by
>                  observing  [on
>                  17/03/2013] "To close the loop (you all know how much I
>         like to do
>                  that), I now think it would be better to leave this
>         unfinished
>                  work as
>                  is and focus instead, as we've previously discussed, on
>                  incorporating
>                  relevant portions of the Best Practices for TEI in
>         Libraries
>                  into the
>                  Guidelines."
>
>                  Since that date, there have indeed been a few proposals for
>                  change to
>                  the Header chapter addressing this need. But no-one
>         till now has
>                  asked
>                  for anything like the old <ihs> to be reinstated. As I said
>                  before, it
>                  is hard to see what the use case for such an element
>         would be,
>                  given the
>                  availability of other mechanisms for doing the same job.
>
>                  [1] "Noting the intention to remove the chapter on the
>         Independent
>                  Header, P[erry] W[illett] commented that members of the
>                  Libraries SIG
>                  attached considerable importance to the material
>         presently in that
>                  chapter about the relationship between the TEI Header
>         and other
>                  metadata
>                  schemes, which should be  maintained and updated.
>         Council noted that
>                  there was a need for such comparative information,
>         whether or
>                  not the
>                  independent header module was retained as a distinct
>         schema. It was
>                  agreed that the editors should try to draft a
>         discussion of related
>                  issues  which might become part of the header chapter
>         or a free
>                  standing
>                  document.
>                  Action [by 1 sep 2004] editors:     draft document
>         discussing
>                  relationship of TEI Header to  other meta standards on
>         the basis of
>                  material already  available, to be handed to the TEI
>         Libraries
>                  SIG for
>                  improvement and updating."
>
>                  [2] The draft lingers on in the TEI source tree at
>                  P5/Source/Defunct/SH-Other-____Metadata-Standards.xml
>
>                  [3] " M[atthew] D[riscoll] recommends chapter be
>         dropped. J[ohn]
>                  W[alsh]
>                  (co-author of the re-write) concurs. JW was assigned to
>         draft a few
>                  paragraphs discussing the relationship between the TEI
>         Header
>                  and other
>                  standards (including MARC and Dublin Core) in general
>         terms, without
>                  detailed mappings.
>                  Action 52: JW TRAC
>         http://tei.oucs.ox.ac.uk/trac/____TEIP5/ticket/336
>         <http://tei.oucs.ox.ac.uk/trac/__TEIP5/ticket/336>
>
>                  <http://tei.oucs.ox.ac.uk/__trac/TEIP5/ticket/336
>         <http://tei.oucs.ox.ac.uk/trac/TEIP5/ticket/336>> .
>                  Draft paras on metadata standards 2007-05-05
>                  Action 53: SB put JW paras in appropriate place at end
>         of HD
>                  2007-05-12 "
>
>
>
>
>
>                     On 21/02/15 20:32, Piotr Bański wrote:
>
>                      Hi Peter,
>
>                      Thank you for the response! Well, the header I've just
>                      prepared has a
>                      <p> under <text> and <body>, which contains a single
>                      sentence with a
>                      single <ref> in it. Of course, this can be called, hmm,
>                      abuse of the
>                      intentions.
>
>                      But it's the intentions that I'm interested in.
>         Independent
>                      headers
>                      used to be printed on many of the flags that the
>         TEI once
>                      waved. Have
>                      we got so conceited as to burn them all? A lot of
>         selling
>                      points gone
>                      in that smoke, it seems.
>
>                      Best regards,
>
>                         Piotr (rubbing his hands in anticipation...)
>
>                      On 21/02/15 21:05, Peter Stadler wrote:
>
>                          Others will probably be able to tell you more
>         on the
>                          historic shift
>                          from P4 to P5 but to my knowledge a TEI P5
>         conformant
>                          document *must*
>                          contain "a single teiHeader element followed by
>         a single
>                          text
>                          element, in that order“ [1,2] (I’m skipping the
>                          teiCorpus stuff and
>                          note that we introduced model.resourceLike
>         which can
>                          replace <text>,
>                          but still, there has to come something after
>         <teiHeader>)
>                          So, officially there are no independent headers any
>                          more, I’d say!?
>
>                          Hope that helps
>                          Peter
>
>                          [1]
>         http://www.tei-c.org/release/____doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/USE.____html#CFAMmc
>         <http://www.tei-c.org/release/__doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/USE.__html#CFAMmc>
>
>         <http://www.tei-c.org/release/__doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/USE.__html#CFAMmc
>         <http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/USE.html#CFAMmc>>
>                          [2]
>         http://www.tei-c.org/release/____doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-____TEI.html
>         <http://www.tei-c.org/release/__doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-__TEI.html>
>
>         <http://www.tei-c.org/release/__doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-__TEI.html
>         <http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-TEI.html>>
>
>                              Am 20.02.2015 um 12:02 schrieb Piotr Bański
>                              <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>         <mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>:
>
>                              Hi all,
>
>                              Are independent/free-standing TEI headers
>         gone with P4?
>
>                              I can't find any mention on them, either in
>         the P5
>                              guidelines or in
>                              the wiki.
>
>                              I can find this, though:
>
>         http://www.tei-c.org/Vault/P5/____1.0.1/doc/tei-p4-doc/html/__SH.__html
>         <http://www.tei-c.org/Vault/P5/__1.0.1/doc/tei-p4-doc/html/SH.__html>
>
>         <http://www.tei-c.org/Vault/__P5/1.0.1/doc/tei-p4-doc/html/__SH.html
>         <http://www.tei-c.org/Vault/P5/1.0.1/doc/tei-p4-doc/html/SH.html>>
>
>                              And a poster from TEI@20, by Michelle
>         Dalmau and
>                              Melanie Schlosser,
>                              addressing among others "alternatives to the
>                              [independent header
>                              schema] in light of P5" (which might just
>         indicate a
>                              change of the
>                              technology for maintaining said schema).
>
>                              I'll be grateful for any pointers and
>         information.
>
>                              Best regards,
>
>                                 Piotr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994
August 1994
July 1994
June 1994
May 1994
April 1994
March 1994
February 1994
January 1994
December 1993
November 1993
October 1993
September 1993
August 1993
July 1993
June 1993
May 1993
April 1993
March 1993
February 1993
January 1993
December 1992
November 1992
October 1992
September 1992
August 1992
July 1992
June 1992
May 1992
April 1992
March 1992
February 1992
January 1992
December 1991
November 1991
October 1991
September 1991
August 1991
July 1991
June 1991
May 1991
April 1991
March 1991
February 1991
January 1991
December 1990
November 1990
October 1990
September 1990
August 1990
July 1990
June 1990
April 1990
March 1990
February 1990
January 1990

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager