Print

Print


FWIW, we think of this kind of implicit/explicit pair as almost
the defining examples of head and trailer, and their correspondence
as the defining example of the correspondence between head
and trailer. The only cases that escape being tagged as head and
trailer are those (not uncommon) in which the two functions are
combined, i.e. those that fall between the end of one div and the
beginning of the next and serve both as trailer to the one and
head to the other, 'Hic explicit liber tertius implicitque liber
quartus.'  Those sometimes end up rudely hacked apart into
trailer and head, but more often tagged as one or the other.

As for closer/opener, though we usually honor its grouping function,
we also choose it (for want of something better) not only for
mixed content in which <signed, etc. appear, but also as a 
catch-all for formulaic opening and closing phrases that do not fall 
happily into head/trailer, dateline, epigraph, byline, or argument, e.g.

<opener>To the tune of Michigan Madness</opener>
<opener>SHEWETH</opener>
<closer>Soli deo gloria.</closer>

But that is purely local practice. The first *could* be regarded
as a kind of <head>, the second as a mere <seg>, and the last
as (???) an <epigraph>. I'd be interested to hear how others
tag these things.

pfs



On Mon, 19 Jan 2009, Lou Burnard wrote:

> I would say, definitely, yes: trailer is to head as explicit is to implicit. 
> The distinction is that one pair is quoted from a manuscript, and the other 
> appears in a printed text, usually with some distinctive formatting (which is 
> not necessarily the case for a manuscript)
>
> By the way <closer> is definitely not the right answer: it's meant to be 
> used to wrap up a *group* of things appearing at the end of a div, e.g. a 
> signature, a trailer etc.
>
> Martin Mueller wrote:
>> I've seen <trailer> used for phrases like "The end", "finis" etc.
>> 
>> But to the 'explicit liber tertius' corresponds not infrequently an 
>> 'incipit liber quartus', and ideally one would would want a  symmetrical 
>> treatment for these phenomena. Would <head> then be the  right thing for 
>> the 'incipit'?
>> On Jan 19, 2009, at 3:54 AM, Dot Porter wrote:
>> 
>>> We're encoding collections of canon law (both printed and manuscript),
>>> and there are instances where at the very end of the collection (after
>>> the final canon) there is an explicit: "Explicit Liber primus" for
>>> example. We're wondering if it would be reasonable to mark this using
>>> the <closer> tag, which according to the Guidelines "groups together
>>> salutations, datelines, and similar phrases appearing as a final group
>>> at the end of a division, especially of a letter." A collection of
>>> canons obviously isn't a letter, but the explicit seems to be acting
>>> as a closer for the collection. Thoughts?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Dot
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Dot Porter (MA, MSLS)          Metadata Manager
>>> Digital Humanities Observatory (RIA), Pembroke House, 28-32 Upper
>>> Pembroke Street, Dublin 2, Ireland
>>> -- A Project of the Royal Irish Academy --
>>> Phone: +353 1 234 2444        Fax: +353 1 234 2400
>>> http://dho.ie          Email: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schaffner | [log in to unmask] | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/
316-C Hatcher Library N, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI 48109-1205
--------------------------------------------------------------------