Print

Print


I would prefer this not to be a decision between *you're doing either this or that* (or nothing, if you don't fit in one of those). Rather I would like to ask: What is my focus? What is my dominant markup? Genetic, topographic, semantic representation? Then I would still be able to add a couple of semantic features (like reference strings) in my documentary markup, without falling out of comliance with the main purpose.


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Im Auftrag von Martin Holmes
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. Februar 2014 14:49
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: Re: [TEI-L] Embedded transcription and text structure

I think one possible reason for the discomfort people feel at the 
restrictions in <sourceDoc> is that <text>, for so long the only place 
to put your transcription, does happily allow all sorts of arguably 
non-textual features such as the milestones <pb/>, <lb/> and <cb/>, 
among other things. It seems a little unfair that <text> provides 
support for a lot of things which are arguably not in its domain, while 
<sourceDoc> does not. That's historical, of course; we didn't have 
<surface>, <zone> and friends until recently, and <sourceDoc> until even 
more recently.

Imagining P6 for a moment: where would you go with this problem? Would 
you clarify the distinction between hierarchies and purposes, by 
reducing the features available in <text>, or would you loosen 
<sourceDoc> so that it could contain more textual features?

Cheers,
Martin

On 14-02-05 05:27 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
> I wouldn't dream of disagreeing with either Sebastian or Peter. But I
> also  think it's a bit of a misrepresentation to say that surface zone
> etc. are only useful for the encoding of genetic editions.
>
> They also provide the very generally useful ability to define a two
> dimensional grid and to map specific parts of your transcription to it.
> This facility was there of course long before the genetic workgroup
> started using it as well.
>
> And I can't think of any obvious or even non-obvious way of saying "this
> bit of text transcribes a block of text in the top right hand corner" or
> "this bit of text is written at right angles to the rest" without it.
> Good luck doing that with <lb/>.
>
>
>
> On 05/02/14 13:14, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> Indeed, as Sebastian points out: this is really a case (yet again) of
>> the endemic difficulty XML (and its parent, SGML, and any system based
>> on the OHCO thesis) has with overlapping hierarchies.
>>
>> Agreeing twice with Sebastian in a single email: the long-known and
>> well-established system of using <text> with <pb/>, <cb/> and <lb/>
>> etc, remains available, and this will allow embedding of <list>,
>> <person>, <note>, etc, in all the usual places.  And, as James points
>> out, we have decades of examples of ways of manipulating <pb/> and its
>> friends to create page-by-page, even line-by-line, views, as you
>> wish.  Our own Textual Communities project takes this approach, and
>> builds mechanisms for viewing documents by both hierarchies
>> (page/column/line; text/div/p or l etc) right into its base.
>>
>> In my view, one of the problems here is that the wording and
>> presentation of the current chapter 11 of the Guidelines implies that
>> the system of <surface>, <zone> etc should be used for transcription
>> of ALL primary source materials.  Thus its first sentence:
>>
>> "This chapter defines a module intended for use in the representation
>> of primary sources, such as manuscripts or other written materials. “
>>
>> In fact, this system is ideally suited for one rather narrow editorial
>> circumstance: the transcription of “genetic editions”, typically
>> (almost exclusively) or modern authorial manuscript materials, where
>> the exact representation of the writing process in a single document,
>> as a record of the author’s developing inscription of his work, is so
>> crucial as to trump every need.  Thus the genesis of the surface/zone
>> system, in the work of the TEI workgroup on Genetic Editions, chaired
>> by Fotis Iannidis and with Elena Pierazzo a.o. among its members (see
>> http://users.ox.ac.uk/~lou/wip/geneticTEI.doc.html).  One might
>> presume that, encouraged by the Guidelines’ presentation of this
>> system as appropriate for ALL transcription circumstances, people are
>> using it to transcribe manuscripts, etc, which are not instances of
>> genetic editions — hence the repeated requests on this list for a
>> loosening of the content models for <line> etc.
>>
>> So, in contrast to Oliver’s feature request for a loosening of the
>> content model: I’d agree with the various arguments against this.  I
>> don’t think the floodgates will open and civilization will drown if we
>> permit <rs> within model.linePart.  But I do think people will tie
>> themselves up in knots trying to use a system devised for genetic
>> editions when transcribing (say) medieval manuscripts.  The problem
>> would be considerably eased, I think, if the guidelines made it
>> clearer that the system described in Chapter 11 is really only to be
>> used in the specific circumstance for which it was devised: for
>> encoding of genetic editions.  In addition, this chapter might also
>> point out (as it currently does not) that the system of text/pb/lb etc
>> is efficient and adequate for many transcription situations, and
>> particularly for projects which wish (as most do) to represent both
>> the intellectual structure of a text and the disposition of that text
>> in a document in a single encoding. Seems to me that this might be put
>> into a feature request.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On 5 Feb 2014, at 06:31, Sebastian Rahtz <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5 Feb 2014, at 12:18, James Cummings <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05/02/14 11:56, Lou Burnard wrote:
>>>>> I find it slightly surprising though that no-one has yet proposed
>>>>> permitting <surface>, <zone> and friends to appear within <text>
>>>>> as an alternative to  <div>. That would seem a neater way of
>>>>> having your cake and eating it than any of the proposals so far
>>>>> made.
>>>> For some reason that worries me. Perhaps as a muddying of the waters
>>>> even further?  It would require changing the content model of zone
>>>> significantly to make it useful, wouldn't it?
>>> I agree, just putting surface and zone into <text> generates a whole
>>> slew more problems than
>>> it solve. Anyway, we all_know_ there is no clean solution in XML to
>>> representing
>>> two hierarchies at the same time.
>>>
>>> the old method of interspersing your <text> with <milestone> elements
>>> (or its specialisations <pb>, <lb> etc)
>>> hasn’t gone away.
>>> --
>>> Sebastian Rahtz
>>> Director (Research) of Academic IT
>>> University of Oxford IT Services
>>> 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
>>>
>>> Não sou nada.
>>> Nunca serei nada.
>>> Não posso querer ser nada.
>>> À parte isso, tenho em mim todos os sonhos do mundo.
>> Peter Robinson
>> Bateman Professor of English
>> #311, Arts Building, 9 Campus Drive, University of Saskatchewan
>> Saskatoon SK S7N 5A5, Canada
>> ph. (+1) 306 966 5491