Print

Print


>> - I have used IMT with various groups of students now and its 
>> simplicity is stunning, very much appreciated by beginners and worth 
>> keeping (you can always costumise it if you want!), so although we 
>> could differentiate between different types of annotations, @facs 
>> seems the best candidate for expressing a straight forward -not 
>> further specified- association.
>>   
> 
> I am entirely willing to believe that IMT is a great tool to use, but 
> that is not an argument to support whether  @facs should be used for 
> "any kind of association between image and any kind of text" or only 
> for  "association between image and a transcription of the image".
> 
> Just to muddy the waters further, would you regard as "transcription" of 
> an image a description such as "woman holding child in stable full of 
> beasts of burden; three oriental potentates offering gifts"  or
> "bowl of fruit, one slightly mouldy"?

That's exactly the problem. If you limit @facs to transcription, I bet 
it is going to be quite hard to say what a transcription is.
A diplomatic imitative transcription only (and of which grade?)? a 
critical edition? a palaeographyc commentary where interspersed with the 
'transcription' of a string of text you would have comments on the 
morphology of the letters?...tricky...

Arianna

-- 
Dr Arianna Ciula
Research Associate
Centre for Computing in the Humanities
King's College London
2nd Floor
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL (UK)
Tel: +44 (0)20 78481945
http://staff.cch.kcl.ac.uk/~aciula/