Print

Print


Dear Torsten and everyone,

On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Torsten Schassan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Does anyone else with me feels the uneasiness of having elements like
> rubric, incipit, explicit etc on "description level" and nothing the
> like within the transcription? Would you use <span type="incipit"> in
> these cases, maybe in order to point from msDesc to text? <trailer>
> certainly looks good from its definition but using <finalRubric> here
> and <trailer> there makes it less easy to connect description with the text?
>
> Any thought and suggestions on this?
>
YES. This is something that has bothered me a bit since msDesc was
first made available. And yes, I usually point from text-level
elements to descriptors in the header. It works quite well this way
when "types" of things are described in the ms description, and then
specific instances can be pointed up to the general description (for
example I'll describe "types" of attributes in the header, and then
point from instances of them in the transcription up to the general
description (<abbr corresp="#cross-thorn"> points to a description of
crossed thorns)). This approach makes less sense when dealing with
something like rubrics or incipits, where you're really duplicating
information - placing the text of the rubric once in the header
(tagged as <rubric>) and a second time in the transcription (tagged as
<seg> or something else). But I haven't given much thought to how this
might be dealt with. I agree that it would be theoretically great to
have those elements currently used to tag text in the description
(rubric, incipit, explicit) also available for use on the
transcription level - or perhaps better, some parallel/linking
construction that would get around the duplication of information.

Dot

> Best, Torsten
>
>> 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]
>
>
> - --
> Torsten Schassan
> Herzog August Bibliothek, Postfach 1364, D-38299 Wolfenbuettel
> Tel.: +49-5331-808-130, schassan {at} hab.de
>  http://www.hab.de; http://www.hab.de/forschung/projekte/weiss64.htm
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFJfbdrq4nZEP2KS4QRAuNfAJ9iRXd/HzwAqn7aEXg47Iz+vuPh8ACfRjaV
> 6iEG+36G4wO3uKFa59CpPSM=
> =YtyZ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>



-- 
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]