Hy Syd, Lou, and everybody else,

> Sorry, Torsten, I didn't completely follow your request for changing
> the distinction as discussed in the Guidelines.

I thought I don't "request" but think through options. ;-)

> *<choice>  and its children<sic>  and<corr>  are for cases where the
>    modern digital editor creating a TEI edition corrects something in
>    the source.

I completely agree! This is the easy part.

> Thus these elements have nothing to do with your use case.

I disagree because these elements and their usage relate to <subst> and 
sic/corr (at least in my mind) and I want to distinguish between these 
elements or at least get an idea what "we" think is the appropriate 
encoding for certain phenomena.

> *<subst>  and its children<del>  and<add>  are for cases where the
>    document as it is being encoded already has had changes made.

Hm, what is it exactly that bears this semantic? Is it add/del or is it 

Am 07.04.2011 17:36, schrieb Lou Burnard:
> No. <choice> says "there are two (or more) different ways of encoding
> the phenomenon at this point: choose one". <subst> says "there are two
> things going on here and I interpret their combined effect as
> constituting a substitution". One is an alternation, and the other an
> aggregation.

I'm not totally convinced that there is really the distinction between 
"alternation" and "aggregation" but only an order of explicitness: To 
me, even choice is an aggregation as -like you said Lou- editors group 
two views on the manuscript together in order to let the user (or a XSLT 
script) choose from. And alternation is what subst offers: Choosing from 
two options is necessary if one wants to display subst too!

That's exactly why I think that choice/subst could be best(?) used to 
express the semantic distinction: While choice offers the option to 
choose from, this choice can only be made in "editorial mode" i.e. when 
editors or users of modern editions choose which version they want to 
present or see? On the other hand, the expressive power of subst seems 
to be so strong that I think one could interpret the usage of subst as 
something like: "I am the editor and I present my interpretation of 
what's going on in the manuscript but it seems pretty clear that is is a 
substitution", and therefore subst represents "what is *in* the source".

> Maybe I've been hanging out with French theory too much, but it seems to
> me that "add" and "del" belong to the documentary level, while "sic" and
> "corr" definitely belong to the textual level.

If I'm the only one to "feel" the need I will leave the topic after this 
email. One question is left though, just to make sure: How do I express 
both, documentary *and* textual level? Just adding @type on subst, as 
proposed by Syd?

In the end it might be necessary to either adapt and clarify the 
explanation of the use of the pairs del/add and sic/corr or (less 
probable) to find another way of expressing which elements shall be used 
to document "what's in the source" and "what's editorial choice"? And 
mention the relation between choice and subst somewhere which is not the 
case right now?

Am 07.04.2011 17:42, schrieb Syd Bauman:

> You may wish to indicate that you (the modern digital editor creating
> a TEI edition) believe that the deletion and addition were performed
> for the purpose of correcting an apparent error. This seems like a
> reasonable desire to me, which I suppose could be accommodated by use
> of the type= attribute. (<add>,<del>, and<subst>  all bear type= and
> subtype=).

This should be covered by the use of subst anyway, if I understand Lou 
right? So, type wouldn't be needed?

Best, Torsten

Torsten Schassan
Digitale Editionen
Abteilung Handschriften und Sondersammlungen
Herzog August Bibliothek, Postfach 1364, D-38299 Wolfenbuettel
Tel.: +49-5331-808-130 (Fax -165), schassan {at}