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  June 1993

TEI-L June 1993

Subject:

Re: SGML-compatible mark-up

From:

Dominic Dunlop <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Dominic Dunlop <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 4 Jun 1993 01:15:02 CDT

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (106 lines)

Let me argue both sides of this case:
 
Firstly, I have an action from a recent TEI workshop to come up with
an example of a minimal TEI-conformant text.  I'll certainly take
heed of the discussion taking place in this thread while I'm
doing the drafting.
 
But secondly, take a look at the way most people manipulate texts with
computers.  They use more-or-less WYSWIG word-processors, with the
result that what they see on the screen and on the printed page is a
representation of the (generally layout-orientated) semantics
represented by the data in a file, rather than a dumb dump of each byte
in the file.  Certainly, it is possible to manipulate text using dumb
dump methodologies: those of us who use TeX or troff do it as a matter
of course.  But we have to be pretty motivated (and/or set in our ways)
to use TeX or troff these days: most computer users, if these tools
were all that were available, just wouldn't bother to process words at
all.  Similarly, desk-top publishing would never have caught on if the
only way to achieve it had been to use a dumb editor to create
typesetting tapes or PostScript.
 
So it is, I contend, with any mark-up, SGML-based or not,
TEI-conformant or not, which adds any significant amount of information
to that carried by the words of a text alone.  Certainly, as a newcomer
to this field of study, I find that most of the ad hoc and mutually-
incompatible mark-up schemes developed over the years by researchers in
the humanities are pretty efficient at submerging the words in the
underlying text -- although TEI-conformant mark-up can excel in this
task by allowing so many classes of features to be described in such
detail, giving greater scope for obfuscation than mark-up schemes
addressing more limited domains of interest.
 
Let me emphasise: the problem is not the TEI qua TEI; it is the desire
for a portable mark-up scheme which has to provide for the needs of all
users of marked-up texts, rather than simply catering for the specific
needs of the researcher capturing the text.  Switching from, say,
WordPerfect to Word because you have moved to an employer who has
decided to standardize on the latter for document interchange is
painful.  Similarly portability of electronic texts has a price which
must be paid by those who capture them -- particularly those who are
used to using their own favourite, non-portable, format.  But
portablity also has a pay back: researchers should have to capture
fewer texts themselves because they can more easily re-use texts
captured by others.  If you don't believe the pain is worth the gain,
then you can ignore the recommendations of the TEI.  But it is part of
the TEI's job to try to convince you that the pain level is not that
great -- hence the need for examples.
 
There remains the problem of not being able to see the wordy wood for
the mark-up trees.  We must learn from the word-processor experience
and show the user a comprehensible representation of the contents of
the file, rather than one glyph for each character code in the file.
Of course, this is possible for any mark-up scheme, and has been done
for some -- ICE, for example.  The advantage of using an SGML-based
mark-up is that the tools that one needs to get started on the job are
available commercially -- have been for several years now -- and the
TEI has been able to negotiate attractive academic licence rates for
some of them.  (As an aside, with the introduction of Wordperfect
MarkUp, an SGML-aware add-on for the world's best-selling
word-processing package, those of us who live to make strange marks in
text are in danger of being sucked into the world of WYSIWIG anyway.)
 
A growing number of tools -- to which early TEI-conformant projects
such as the British National Corpus may be expected to add -- are also
freely available.  These tools should be easily adapted to any
TEI-conformant mark-up, so fostering the the reuse of electronic texts
that is the motivation behind the TEI.
 
You may have noticed me sidling into the future conditional.  I admit
that not all of these things are with us yet -- although a lot can
already be achieved with current SGML-aware editors.  There is also the
problem of the conversion of existing mark-up schemes into a form which
can take advantage of such tools.  On the British National Corpus
project, we have had a lot of trouble converting from unverifable
mark-ups (that is mark-ups for which no syntax checker exists), to a
mark-up which may trivially be checked for syntactic correctness by an
SGML parser.  The process brings to light errors in electronic source
texts which had hitherto gone undetected, and which must be corrected
by hand, an expensive process which often requires reference to the
original printed text.  (Apart from anything else, it's rather
disheartening to realise that a text that one has painstakingly
captured suffers from syntactic errors.)  We have not been able to use
SGML-aware editors for this task, as, in our experience, they can only
be used to create new documents which conform to a particular document
type definition; they cannot be used to bring initially
syntactically-incorrect texts into line with a DTD.  I suspect that
anybody with a body of electronic texts would experience similar
problems, and this is a disincentive to conversion.
 
A related issue is that of the conversion of existing tools, such as
taggers and indexers, to be aware of -- and eventually to make
intelligent decisions based upon -- SGML mark-up.  This has yet to be
done.  Once it has been done, the resulting tools will be more powerful
than those we have today, and much more widely applicable.  But it
hasn't been done yet -- unless, in the case of an indexer, you have
deep enough pockets to afford Basis' rates.  (I'm sure other vendors
jump into the discussion if they have applicable products.)
 
These and other issues will figure in a session, Problems in producing
a large text corpus, at the forthcoming AHC/ALLC conference.  I hope,
though, that the benefits of conversion for old texts, and capture in
TEI-conformant format for new texts, will become apparent as time
passes.
---
Dominic

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

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