Print

Print


I think this may be a case where you both agree but just from different
perspectives ;). From a paleographic perspective, marks on the page that
are in some way "marked" (i.e. in a linguistic sense) are presumably
<hi>. This is a description rather than an interpretation. From the
point of view of a text, however, they may represent abbreviations, in
which case one can be more specific than simply <hi>.

When I was doing my edition of C├Ždmon's Hymn, I was impressed by how
much the coding had to change (conceptually at least) at the limen
between the diplomatic and editoral text.

-dan


On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 11:46 +0000, Young, John T wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> 
> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C75BF7.305D2CC9
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> 	charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 
> I suppose my point was that I see <hi> as purely a descriptive tag =
> whereas <expan> and <supplied> are both interpretative.  (I know there =
> are those who think that descriptive, or format, tagging, is not the job =
> of XML, but in a manuscript transcription I think it has to be.)
> =20
> With thorn-superscript e for 'the', for instance, we encode <abbr =
> expan=3D"the">&thorn;<hi rend=3D"superscript">e</hi></abbr>.  <hi> =
> records the appearance of the text on the page; <abbr> records editorial =
> expansion of it.  But I'm not claiming that this is the only way, or the =
> only valid way, of skinning this particular cat.
> =20
> John
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: Croenen, Godfried [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Sat 24/02/2007 8:14 PM
> To: Young, John T; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: Expansion of abbreviations / use of <hi>
> 
> 
> Why is <hi> the wrong choice here? As a palaeographer I would argue that =
> the letters/words/part of words are there, they are just represented by =
> other symbols. Does this not qualify as visually distinct in the =
> original?
> =20
> Granted, there is a larger degree of uncertaintty in transcribing them, =
> but that doesn't mean that the transcriptions are just arbitrary.
> =20
> (sorry for coming in on this discussion rather late)
> =20
> Godfried
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list on behalf of =
> Young, John T
> Sent: Tue 20/02/2007 10:07
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Expansion of abbreviations
> 
> 
> I must say I thought <hi> was an odd choice of tag for precisely this =
> reason - my understanding of <hi> is that it's for letters that are in =
> some way visually distinct in the original (underlined, italic, =
> superscript etc).  At the Newton Project we also use <supplied> only for =
> text that has in some sense been 'lost' from the original - damage nine =
> times out of ten in our case, or working from a defective copy.  But I =
> don't think I would make it obligatory for everyone else to follow suit, =
> and I can see why some editors might find <supplied> more appropriate =
> than <hi> in cases like this.  As long as there are attributes to show =
> whether the editor is restoring lost text or supplying text that was =
> never actually there in the first place, it seems to serve the purpose =
> quite well.  But perhaps I'm missing something.
> =20
> John
> John Young
> The Newton Project
> Imperial College London
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list on behalf of =
> James Cummings
> Sent: Mon 19/02/2007 9:03 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Expansion of abbreviations
> 
> 
> 
> As I'm responsible for the Sourceforge Feature Request behind this, see
> http://tinyurl.com/2s8oph perhaps I should cast my vote.
> 
> I tend to use <hi> to indicate expansions inside expan.  So:
> 
> <choice>
>   <abbr>dni</abbr>
>   <expan>d<hi>omi</hi>ni</expan>
> </choice>
> 
> However, when teaching TEI Customisation with Roma and ODD one of the =
> exercises
> I have had students do is add a hi-like element called 'e' which is used =
> as
> semantic sugar for expan/hi.  Thus:
> 
> <choice>
>   <abbr>dni</abbr>
>   <expan>d<e>omi</e>ni</expan>
> </choice>
> 
> 
> But, I agree that:
> a) <supplied> is not correct here (the text is abbreviated, not =
> illegible)
> b) <hi> is not correct here (the text is not highlighted in the =
> original)
> c) using <expan> inside <expan> is a possibility, but not very =
> satisfying or
> human-readable.
> d) adding another element for just this is a possibility...<seg> is =
> another
> possibility.
> 
> In general I just want the guidelines to be consistent about their
> use/recommendations in this area.  I certainly need an element to =
> indicate the
> expanded sections of an expanded abbreviation (brevigraph).
> 
> -james
> 
> --
> Dr James Cummings, Oxford Text Archive, University of Oxford
> James dot Cummings at oucs dot ox dot ac dot uk
> 
> 
> 
> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C75BF7.305D2CC9
> Content-Type: text/html;
> 	charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 
> <HTML dir=3Dltr><HEAD><TITLE>Re: Expansion of abbreviations</TITLE>=0A=
> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dunicode">=0A=
> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16414" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>=0A=
> <BODY>=0A=
> <DIV id=3DidOWAReplyText6600 dir=3Dltr>=0A=
> <DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>I suppose my =
> point was that I see &lt;hi&gt; as purely a descriptive tag whereas =
> &lt;expan&gt; and &lt;supplied&gt; are both interpretative.&nbsp; (I =
> know there are those who think that descriptive, or format, tagging, is =
> not the job of XML, but in a manuscript transcription I think it has to =
> be.)</FONT></DIV>=0A=
> <DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A=
> <DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>With thorn-superscript e for =
> 'the', for instance, we encode &lt;abbr =
> expan=3D"the"&gt;&amp;thorn;&lt;hi =
> rend=3D"superscript"&gt;e&lt;/hi&gt;&lt;/abbr&gt;.&nbsp; &lt;hi&gt; =
> records the appearance of the text on the page; &lt;abbr&gt; records =
> editorial expansion of it.&nbsp; But I'm not claiming that this is the =
> only way, or the only valid way, of skinning this particular =
> cat.</FONT></DIV>=0A=
> <DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A=
> <DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>John</FONT></DIV></DIV>=0A=
> <DIV dir=3Dltr><BR>=0A=
> <HR tabIndex=3D-1>=0A=
> <FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2><B>From:</B> Croenen, Godfried =
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Sat 24/02/2007 8:14 =
> PM<BR><B>To:</B> Young, John T; =
> [log in to unmask]<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: Expansion of =
> abbreviations / use of &lt;hi&gt;<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>=0A=
> <DIV dir=3Dltr>=0A=
> <DIV id=3DidOWAReplyText88215 dir=3Dltr>=0A=
> <DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Why is =
> &lt;hi&gt; the wrong choice here? As a palaeographer I would argue that =
> the letters/words/part of words&nbsp;are there, they are just =
> represented by other symbols. Does this not qualify as visually distinct =
> in the original?</FONT></DIV>=0A=
> <DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A=
> <DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Granted, there is a larger =
> degree of uncertaintty in transcribing them, but that doesn't mean that =
> the transcriptions are just arbitrary.</FONT></DIV>=0A=
> <DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A=
> <DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>(sorry for coming in on this =
> discussion rather late)</FONT></DIV>=0A=
> <DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A=
> <DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Godfried</FONT></DIV></DIV>=0A=
> <DIV dir=3Dltr><BR>=0A=
> <HR tabIndex=3D-1>=0A=
> <FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2><B>From:</B> TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) =
> public discussion list on behalf of Young, John T<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tue =
> 20/02/2007 10:07<BR><B>To:</B> =
> [log in to unmask]<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: Expansion of =
> abbreviations<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>=0A=
> <DIV dir=3Dltr>=0A=
> <DIV id=3DidOWAReplyText81255 dir=3Dltr>=0A=
> <DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>I must say I =
> thought &lt;hi&gt; was an odd choice of tag for precisely this reason - =
> my understanding of &lt;hi&gt; is that it's for letters that are in some =
> way visually distinct in the original (underlined, italic, superscript =
> etc).&nbsp; At the Newton Project we also use &lt;supplied&gt; only for =
> text that has in some sense been 'lost' from the original - damage nine =
> times out of ten in our case, or working from a defective copy.&nbsp; =
> But I don't think I would make it obligatory for everyone else to follow =
> suit, and I can see why some editors might find &lt;supplied&gt; more =
> appropriate than &lt;hi&gt; in cases like this.&nbsp; As long as there =
> are attributes to show whether the editor is restoring lost text or =
> supplying text that was never actually there in the first place, it =
> seems to serve the purpose quite well.&nbsp; But perhaps I'm missing =
> something.</FONT></DIV>=0A=
> <DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A=
> <DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>John</FONT></DIV>=0A=
> <DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>John Young</FONT></DIV>=0A=
> <DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The Newton =
> Project</FONT></DIV>=0A=
> <DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Imperial College =
> London</FONT></DIV></DIV>=0A=
> <DIV dir=3Dltr><BR>=0A=
> <HR tabIndex=3D-1>=0A=
> <FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2><B>From:</B> TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) =
> public discussion list on behalf of James Cummings<BR><B>Sent:</B> Mon =
> 19/02/2007 9:03 PM<BR><B>To:</B> =
> [log in to unmask]<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: Expansion of =
> abbreviations<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>=0A=
> <DIV>=0A=
> <P><FONT size=3D2>As I'm responsible for the Sourceforge Feature Request =
> behind this, see<BR><A =
> href=3D"http://tinyurl.com/2s8oph">http://tinyurl.com/2s8oph</A> perhaps =
> I should cast my vote.<BR><BR>I tend to use &lt;hi&gt; to indicate =
> expansions inside expan.&nbsp; So:<BR><BR>&lt;choice&gt;<BR>&nbsp; =
> &lt;abbr&gt;dni&lt;/abbr&gt;<BR>&nbsp; =
> &lt;expan&gt;d&lt;hi&gt;omi&lt;/hi&gt;ni&lt;/expan&gt;<BR>&lt;/choice&gt;=
> <BR><BR>However, when teaching TEI Customisation with Roma and ODD one =
> of the exercises<BR>I have had students do is add a hi-like element =
> called 'e' which is used as<BR>semantic sugar for expan/hi.&nbsp; =
> Thus:<BR><BR>&lt;choice&gt;<BR>&nbsp; =
> &lt;abbr&gt;dni&lt;/abbr&gt;<BR>&nbsp; =
> &lt;expan&gt;d&lt;e&gt;omi&lt;/e&gt;ni&lt;/expan&gt;<BR>&lt;/choice&gt;<B=
> R><BR><BR>But, I agree that:<BR>a) &lt;supplied&gt; is not correct here =
> (the text is abbreviated, not illegible)<BR>b) &lt;hi&gt; is not correct =
> here (the text is not highlighted in the original)<BR>c) using =
> &lt;expan&gt; inside &lt;expan&gt; is a possibility, but not very =
> satisfying or<BR>human-readable.<BR>d) adding another element for just =
> this is a possibility...&lt;seg&gt; is another<BR>possibility.<BR><BR>In =
> general I just want the guidelines to be consistent about =
> their<BR>use/recommendations in this area.&nbsp; I certainly need an =
> element to indicate the<BR>expanded sections of an expanded abbreviation =
> (brevigraph).<BR><BR>-james<BR><BR>--<BR>Dr James Cummings, Oxford Text =
> Archive, University of Oxford<BR>James dot Cummings at oucs dot ox dot =
> ac dot uk<BR></FONT></P></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>
> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C75BF7.305D2CC9--
-- 
Daniel Paul O'Donnell, PhD
Department Chair and Associate Professor of English
Director, Digital Medievalist Project http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/
Chair, Text Encoding Initiative http://www.tei-c.org/

Department of English
University of Lethbridge
Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4
Vox +1 403 329-2377
Fax +1 403 382-7191
Email: [log in to unmask]
WWW: http://people.uleth.ca/~daniel.odonnell/