Print

Print


The group of experts which defined what finally became the current TEI 
proposals for manuscript description almost came to blows about whether 
"incipit" meant (literally) "the first few words of the item being 
described" or "the title given to the item being described in a rubric 
identifying it". I *think* the conclusion was definitely the former (but 
I was hiding under the table at the time).

If I'm right, then clearly there is no real need to tag the incipit or 
explicit of a text within the text, provided  the text boundaries are 
tagged!


Torsten Schassan wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Dear Dot, and hi all,
> 
> sorry for the late answer but I was busy teaching TEI and manuscript
> descriptions for the (whole) last week:
> 
> If we were talking about such passages within manuscript descriptions I
> would (strongly) recommend the element <finalRubric>. I do believe that
> an incipit (almost) *never* contains the words "incipit" nor does the
> explicit contain "explicit" in itself but that these passages are
> rubrics and finalRubrics (or sometimes colophons if mentioned together
> with some person and/or date). But, in the German cataloguing tradition
> we also use the slightly different term "Initium" for what the "real"
> begin of the text is.
> 
> Now, that rubric/finalRubric are (yet) not allowed in transcriptions, we
> either could be willing to allow it (in the future) or make clear the
> function of the portion of text right now marked up as <trailer>?
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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-----