Print

Print


Hi Antonio,

I would generally recommend the 2nd option, that is choice/orig/reg if it is you as an editor who does the regularisation/modernisation of the spelling.

Hovewer if you want to record variation between older and modern editions, there's always app/rdg (and lem if you wanto to have some 'preferred' reading)
eg

<l>Theres my line where some part was
<app>
<rdg wit="#S1">spelled like this in old days</rdg>
<rdg wit="#S2">spelled differently later</rdg>
</app>
</l>

Best,

Magdalena Turska


On 12 June 2014 13:41, 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]>:

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?
    http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/SA.html#SACSAL

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
http://upf.academia.edu/AntonioRojasCastro
https://twitter.com/Rojas_Castro_A
https://www.zotero.org/groups/humanidades_digitales
650 767 335
<http://www.facebook.com/antoni.rojas>