Welcome aboard, professor Scott!
Personally, I like to think the definition of "corpus" is very loose.
E.g., in one project we have hundreds of pages that were sufficiently
damaged that re-constructing the correct page order is only partially
possible. Thus I think of this collection as a "corpus" of pages,
rather than a monograph. Once encoded, each TEI document will
represent a single leaf (recto and verso), complete with metadata for
that page. The various possible page orders will each be represented
by a <teiCorpus> which will XInclude the pages (<TEI> documents) in
its own order.
While probably not what the designers of the <teiCorpus> element had
in mind, it seems to fit the formal definition:
contains the whole of a TEI encoded corpus, comprising a single
corpus header and one or more TEI elements ...
So my instinct is to think this is not an abuse of the <teiCorpus>
structure, but you should make sure to document the heck out of what
> Hi. This is my first post on TEI-L, and let me say thanks in
> advance for any help. I'm involved with a project creating and
> publishing critical editions of ancient non-canonical Jewish
> literature. We are migrating from a custom XML schema to TEI and
> finding that generally our markup needs are met very well. But I'm
> unsure about about how to handle one feature of our documents.
> For a given document we will often have multiple ancient language
> traditions (Greek, Aramaic, Ethiopic, Syriac, etc.). We want to
> encode all of these various traditions together in one document,
> recording textual variants separately for each language. In our
> custom schema we had each document in a root <book/> entity, which
> contained multiple <version/> entities. The closest to this
> structure I've found in the TEI guidelines is using <teiCorpus/> as
> our root entity and encoding each language tradition in its own
> <TEI/> sub-entity. But I'm not sure whether this is an abuse of the
> <teiCorpus/> structure. We also need to encode one or more modern
> translations alongside the ancient textual evidence. It seems like
> we could simply add these as further <TEI/> sub-entities in a
> corpus structure. But, again, I'm not sure whether this is "legit."
> We want to do things in as canonical a way as possible, partly so
> that we can share any tools we develop.