Dear Brett,

Thank you very much for your examples which have very much in common 
with the problems we face in the manuscripts of Goethe's "Faust".
Let me start with the third example:

I suppose that the words "approbation" and "rewards" had been written 
down BEFORE Whitman wrote down "of the government ...".
If this is true, there are three wordings which compete from the 
beginning (and not a wording that was unrivaled first and only then, as 
a result of a later intervention, challenged by other wordings).

In cases like these we use:
<alt target="#nominations #approbation #rewards" mode="excl"/>
<seg xml:id="nominations">nominations</seg>
<seg xml:id="approbation">approbation</seg>
<seg xml:id="rewards">rewards</seg>
I would be really glad to have opinions about this solution from the 

Many thanks,


Yes, there is something in the encoding model for genetic editions 
referring to this 

Am 23.08.2011 01:34, schrieb Brett Barney:
> I'm glad for the discussion that has resulted from Markus's example. I 
> had hoped that it would shed light directly on a similar encoding 
> issue that the Whitman Archive has often faced, but since I can't see 
> that the proposed solutions apply, I'll have a go at explaining the 
> issue and why restricting the content model of <subst> in the manner 
> advocated by the Council subgroup would be . . . a bummer.
> To begin with, I'll quote from a comment I made on one of the relevant 
> Sourceforge tickets (#3393244):
> > On my project, we fairly frequently encounter pairs of words or phrases
> > that we want corral together as alternatives to one another. In the most
> > usual case, the first alternative is deleted and the second added, but
> > quite often the first is not deleted. Because <subst> doesn't allow 
> text,
> > we have taken to using <orig> for the first reading.
> The phenomenon I'm talking about here is one familiar to Dickinson 
> scholars, and I wanted to use some of her manuscripts as examples, but 
> copyright claims make finding/posting images of the manuscripts 
> problematic. So, instead, here is an example from one of Whitman's 
> notebooks (sorry for the relatively poor quality; I think it's good 
> enough for this purpose, though):
> In this description of a wounded soldier that he was visiting, for 
> whatever reason Whitman was uncertain of the fellow's last name, so he 
> wrote three possibilities. Our encoding of the passage:
> John <subst>
> <orig seq="1">Gully</orig>
> <add rend="unmarked" place="supralinear" seq="2">Goolly</add>
> <add rend="unmarked" place="supralinear" seq="3">Gwolly</add>
> </subst>, 84 Broadway
> This sort of "word stack" as we sometimes refer to them, occurs most 
> frequently, though, poem or prose drafts, in which the stack lists 
> multiple possible wordings for a particular passage, with no 
> indication of which Whitman preferred. Here are a couple of examples:
> (live / abide)
> (nominations / approbation / rewards)
> I realize that our use of <orig> for this kind of case is, um, 
> unorthodox, given the Guidelines' definition of <subst>:
> groups one or more deletions with one or more additions when the 
> combination is to be regarded as a single intervention in the text.
> But I've been unable to find an orthodox encoding that suits. The 
> prose introduction of <subst> in 11.3.5 does seem to hint at the need 
> for something like what we have when it says that substitution "may be 
> simply one word overwriting another, or deletion of one word and its 
> replacement by another written above it by the same hand at the one 
> time; the deletion and replacement may be done by different hands at 
> different times; there may be a long chain of substitutions on the one 
> stretch of text, with uncertainty as to the order of substitution and 
> **as to which of many possible readings should be preferred**. 
> [emphasis mine]
> Lou Burnard wrote:
> > For other, murkier, cases other, murkier,
> > solutions seem appropriate. My view is that we should think of <subst>
> > purely as a convenience for the commonest and simplest cases, and
> > constrain its content model accordingly.
> I don't disagree with the principle here, but it doesn't seem that the 
> case I've outlined is that murky, especially when the current model of 
> <subst> allows us to encode it adequately. But if there is a 
> better/more orthodox encoding that I've overlooked, I'd be happy to 
> hear about it, too. I worry, for example, that there's something 
> apposite in the proposed genetic encoding module that I'm forgetting.
> Many thanks,
> Brett
> ------------------
> Brett Barney
> Research Associate Professor
> Center for Digital Research in the Humanities
> University of Nebraska-Lincoln
> [log in to unmask]