> Hello Tobias!
> Thank you for your message announcing your posting to the TEI list,
> which I have also received.
> I find your reflections on encoding very interesting, but I would
> note immediately two things: (1) [...]
> (2) The problem you face is a problem, it seems to
> me, of tracing a line between an objective textual feature and inter-
> pretation. But is there such a clear cut distinction? I do not think so.
> On the contrary! So, to deal with interpretation we use a different
> tool: kleio, in our case; and we exploit the resources of its source-
> oriented philosophy. What you structure, or encode (which is the same,
> more or less) is the present state of your hypotheses regarding your
> source. So: it is our database structuring and organization which
> reflects our interpretation. At this point, we consider the problem
> of TEI encoding as a purely technical problem to represent the state
> of our organized data: we want sort of "publish" data together with
> our analytical work on their content. In sum: the attempt is to
> organize data in a sort of hyerarchical stucture, which distinguishes
> between the data, or sources themselves and the analytical, logical
> interpretation of them. At the pure level of TEI encoding, as you
> approach it, you sort of collapse or telescope the two (at least)
> different levels and I fear you cannot find in principle a clear way
> out of such a difficulty.
> It's all still in a very fuzzy state -- what I said, I mean -- but
> I hope you can see at least some point in it.
> Gruess dich (is it right?)
> PS - If you find these observations of interest to the general
> discussion your posting wanted to prompt, feel free to
> forward my message to the list.
--> Which I herewith do. Part (1) refered to a private exchange.
I think this is a very true statement, and it clears up the mist
for me, partly. BUT: if so, the Green Book seems to collapse these
levels just the same, because a good deal of the encoding serves
the interchangeability of documents, thus being not more than a
projection of document features into a restricted character set.
This process, of course, involves a kind of interpretation, especially
with manuscripts. With printed texts, however, it is fairly easy going
to `interpret' italicized text by a <hi> tag. To call it <foreign> is
quite another matter, though. However, even that, though an interpretation
in principle, seems a safe one in more conventional texts, like Daisy
Miller -- but perhaps a dared one in a Joyce text. That was exactly
one point I tried to make.
The root of my problem was a little different though. I have to
accept, philosophically, that any markup is an interpretation -- my
question was, how can I choose an interpretation that others will
swallow, because it is rather useful than misleading to them?
(`Others' may well include myself, as a user, too.) But I am thankful
for the hint to differentiate between base text and structure, that
turns for me into a difference between purely descriptive and more inter-
pretative -- or structuring -- markup.
:-) to conclude with a relaxing lesson in Bavarian:
when you meet someone, "gruess dich" is perfect,
for to say "bye", however, it is "Servus" or, among younger folks, "Tschau"
So long --
: [i Tromsoe til ca. 6'95] :
: :-) :
: Tobias Rischer :
: Tunveien 9 A21 :
: 9018 TROMSOE :
: NORGE :
: email: :
: [log in to unmask] :
: ([log in to unmask]) :