17. mars 2015 kl. 11:14 skrev Fabio Ciotti <[log in to unmask]>:
>> b) my own pluralistic model of text (to which Arianna refered) has always
>> been developed with the TEI as a potential test case for mapping between
>> implicit textual models (like the TEI) and more explicit models (like mine)
>> in mind. And it always was intended to clarify which notions of text you
>> apply when you use certain TEI elements. And to clarify how you apply
>> divergent notions of text within one digital representation.
> I believe that TEI in the end has been perceived and used (designed?)
> more as a metalanguage capable of being ontologically hospitable with
> respect to many different models of text, even if we often see claims
> that it has (or is) an underlying ontology of text. Last year in
> Chicago I presented a talk proposing to give a general OWL definition
> (semantics??) of XML/TEI (or at least of a subset) and I am working
> with keen ontologists to try to do it practically. The more we go on
> the more we find it is unfeasible, that is we can give ONE definition
> but I already know of many usages of TEI that cannot fit with any
> systematization we could do. Then it comes the question if it is still
> sensible to go that way and I think it is.
That is interesting. We reached a very similar conclusion in our attempts to map elements from TEI to CIDOC-CRM. While one could generally map elements at document level and often at collection level (a set of documents encoded in the same way), there is no way to make a general mapping at the level of all uses of TEI — not even all non-abusive uses.
> BTW I believe that the when Allen Renear and its friends wrote
> "Refining our Notion of what Text Really Is" probably they hit the
> real core of the theory of text encoding
>> c) this view ("ah, by using this TEI element you realize this model of
>> text") can be further developed if others, like Fabio Ciotti, saying "I come
>> from narratology and literary theory background, so my ontology of text has
>> a much more layered and granular structure than any bibliographical based
>> ontology" could tell us more about their ontologies and make them somewhat
>> more explicit. I, at least, would be very happy about that.
> Yes, I think this is important, and we should really try to do it,
> take the notions of fabula, plot, motif, thema, isotopy, actant,
> textual levels, narrative world or space, character and so on, and
> work on them trying to translate them into clear ontologies, and see
> how they relates with other well established ontologies (for instance
> how narratologist notions of fabula and plot relates with the work
> notion of FRBRoo?). Some job has been done, I myself are working on a
> fragment of this. But it is hard and takes time, something really
> scarce, alas.
I think it can be done (with a lot of effort) but this will surely not be a standard; there will be no way of reaching any kind of community agreement? Or do you think that would be possible?
Maybe it can be possible for well established concepts such as plot. At least if one works historically and uses specified theoretical systems.
I would be fun, but the amount of work…