Hi Toma,

Enabling this kind of work, even if done later by someone else, 
is why I often recommend providing lots of useful ids for texts. 
  My preferred granularity is words so I sometimes recommend 
automatically adding @xml:id to <w> elements, or indeed 
automatically add <w> elements around  orthographic words, even 
when they are not being used by the current project. This would 
allow others to point into the text and comment (or markup) 
portions of the text through using these ids.

You are right to point out that checking this kind of thing is a 
good application of schematron. (And for those that don't know 
you can also define those project specific schematron rules right 
in your TEI ODD file.)


On 12/06/14 15:52, Toma Tasovac wrote:
> Dear Antonio,
> I've used your first option (two separate files). We started with
> a modernized spelling version of an 18th-century text (which we
> had from the publisher) and were then changing the spelling back
> to the original spelling.
> So we started with two identical files, automatically created
> xml:ids in each (adding a suffix in the id to differentiate
> between the old spelling file and new spelling file) and the
> @corresp pointing to the exact same word in the other file.
> Because old and new spellings sometimes don't follow the same
> word segmentations, ids would eventually get out of sync (i.e.
> one word in one file would be pointing to two files in the other
> or vice versa), but there I wrote Schematron rules to make sure
> that pointers are correct in both directions (i.e. to make sure
> that an id from one file is pointing to existing id or ids in the
> other file). It was up to the encoder to get things right, of
> course, but Schematron was helpful underlining cases of
> mismatched ids and corresp ids in two files.
> All best,
> Toma
> --
> Toma Tasovac
> Belgrade Center for Digital Humanities
>> On Jun 12, 2014, at 7:41 AM, ANTONIO ROJAS CASTRO
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Hi Martin,
>> Both old and modernized spelling "versions" (or transcriptions)
>> are based on one manuscript - which I call "base manuscript"
>> because I used it to collate other manuscripts in order to get
>> substantive variants.
>> Many thanks
>> 2014-06-12 14:34 GMT+02:00 Martin Holmes <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>>     Hi Antonio,
>>     Is your base text one of the two versions you mention, or
>>     is it a third text?
>>     Cheers,
>>     Martin
>>     On 14-06-12 04:07 AM, ANTONIO ROJAS CASTRO wrote:
>>         Dear TEI list members
>>         I am currently encoding a long poem in Spanish and I
>>         have come across
>>         some difficulties. I have been encoding both an old
>>         spelling version and
>>         a modern spelling version of my base manuscript in
>>         order to present them
>>         as parallel texts. In addition, after collating several
>>         scripts, my aim
>>         is to encode a critical apparatus attached to the
>>         modern spelling version.
>>         I have been reviewing the Guidelines but I failed to
>>         find what should be
>>         the "best" method:
>>          1. I could treat these transcriptions as different
>>         texts and encode
>>             them in different XML files - although I'm using
>>         the same script as
>>             a base text?
>>          2. I could use the <choice> element and combine the
>>         <orig> and <reg>
>>             elements to encode both transcriptions?
>>          3. I could link both transcriptions as parallel texts
>>         using the
>>             <linkGrp> element as described here?
>>         I have seen that some projects follow the first
>>         methodology but I don't
>>         know how they connect both files so I remain suspicious
>>         (browser?); I
>>         would prefer not to follow the second one because I'm
>>         already using the
>>         element <choice> to encode abbreviations and expansions
>>         and I believe
>>         there would be a conflict with the apparatus. Finally
>>         the last method I
>>         think is meant to be used for encoding one text in
>>         different languages
>>         (original and translation) and also it entails I'll
>>         have to identify
>>         each <l> in order to link them, which I began to do and
>>         it is very tiring.
>>         This would be a native digital edition so I don't have
>>         to stick to any
>>         model apart from my base manuscript.
>>         Any advice? Any other method?
>>         Many thanks.
>>         All the best
>>         --
>>         Antonio Rojas Castro
>>         650 767 335
>>         <>
>> --
>> Antonio Rojas Castro
>> 650 767 335
>> <>

Dr James Cummings, [log in to unmask]
Academic IT Services, University of Oxford