Print

Print


> -----Original Message-----
> From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Tim Seid
> Sent: 08 April 2003 16:35
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: DTD for 17th c religious texts from England
>
>
> At the outset of a project creating a digital library of old Quaker texts
> for the 17th c on, is it necessary or advisable to have an expert in text
> encoding and literary texts develop a DTD to encode elements that
> might not
> be available in TEI-Lite?

Presumably those working on this project are already expert in the material,
and already have a clear idea of what exactly matters to them in it. Those
are the important qualifications, without which any text encoding project
will fail.
Specific knowledge of TEI Lite or of any other DTD is a good thing, to the
extent that it saves re-inventing the wheel, but is less important than
knowledge of (a) the texts and what matters in them (b) how to express that
in an appropriate encoding

 Or is TEI-Lite suitable for a first phase of
> digitizing, encoding, and publishing the database to the web?

Yes. Probably, Certainly it's what lots of people do.

If
> the texts
> are further encoded later on, what does that do to the creation
> of a search
> engine?

Nothing, I would have thought.

 Does the search engine have to be updated then every time a new
> element is made available within the database.

Depends whether you have bought a rubbish search engine or not!

For example, later we
> encode all scriptural citations.  Should that be an easy addition to a
> search engine if the program is robust enough?
>

Yes. The whole point of the TEI (and indeed XML) is that it is an eXtensible
markup system. A TEI (or XML) -aware search engine has to know that, and
provide interfaces by which you can tell it what to do with a tag that
wasn't previously expected.


> One more question?  Some of the texts I'm talking about may have Greek,
> Hebrew, and Latin.  Should we expect these to be done in unicode
> and tagged
> appropriately?

The whole of your text  (not just the "funny characters") *must* be in
Unicode if you are going down the XML route. If Greek, Hebrew, and Latin are
your only languages you really don't have a problem.  Assuming you are
running an operating system produced in the current century, you will find
that Unicode support is very much better than you may be led to believe by
those whose notions om the subject were formed in the last!


 Some companies say they will use images for Greek and
> Hebrew rather than text for display.
>

Treat them with the contempt they deserve. This is NOT the way to do it.

>
> -- Tim Seid
> Associate Dean of Distributed Learning
> Earlham School of Religion
> 765-983-1588 http://esr.earlham.edu/
>
>