Print

Print


Dear Gerrit and all, 

Sorry if I sounded too dismissive about Hugh's suggestion! I was answering in a hurry on Sunday. 

I wonder if one of the core issues in this discussion is not that some of us assume an essential and irreconcilable dichotomy between "born-digital" and print editions, between the representation of the intentions of an editor-in-print and the representation of a multi-witness text. While others consider that we are all in the same boat, that maintaining the possibility to display an edition (born-digital or not) according to the age-old conventions of philological scholarship is a necessity, and that the view and intentions of an editor-in-print are just a way to express the representation of a multi-witness text. 

Do you agree with this feeling? I am under the impression that very often TEI people discussing critical editions speak from very different points of view, and maybe acknowledging those different views would make the research of a solution easier? 

Best wishes, 
Marjorie

----- Mail original -----
De: "Gerrit Brüning" <[log in to unmask]>
À: "Burghart Marjorie" <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
Envoyé: Lundi 4 Mai 2015 09:38:05
Objet: Re: Encoding conjecture in critical apparatus

Dear Marjorie,
dear all,

I think Hugh's suggestion deserves more attention and elaboration.
If you intend to display an existing printed apparatus as it is, it will 
be much more natural and easy to retain all (or most) characters of the 
source text as character data content, rather than as the value of an 
attribute. So the best starting point would be something like:
<appEntry>(a) meo] conieci, m. codd., uestro Vulg.</appEntry>
Information which is to make the representation more structured should 
be given as elements and attributes, for example:
<gb:appEntry>
     <ref>(a)</ref>
     <lem>meo</lem>] <note>conieci</note>,
     <rdg>m.</rdg>  <wit>codd.</wit>,
     <quote>uestro</quote> <ref>Vulg</ref>.
</gb:appEntry>
Of course, other element names may more adequate, and attributes 
(@target, @wit) may be added.
The point is that a *mixed-content element* will be more convenient for 
the given purpose than the structured element <app> as we now know it 
(where no text and only some elements are allowed).

Best,

Gerrit

Am 03.05.2015 um 20:54 schrieb Burghart Marjorie:
> What about using the certainty element? Something like:
>
> <app>
>          <lem>meo<certainty cert="high" locus="value"><desc>uestro <title>Vulg.</title></desc></certainty></lem>
>          <rdg wit="#P #V #H #E"><abbr>m</abbr></rdg>
> </app>
>
> What I like about the above is also that it would let us print or display the apparatus according to the age-old conventions of critical editions - something I am very attentive to maintain, even in born-digital editions.
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Hugh Cayless"<[log in to unmask]>
> À:[log in to unmask]
> Envoyé: Dimanche 3 Mai 2015 20:07:25
> Objet: Re: Encoding conjecture in critical apparatus
>
>
> I’ll add that if you’re wanting to encode the form of the apparatus as printed in the text, then you probably want to do the apparatus as <notes> rather than (or in addition to) using <app>.

-- 
Gerrit Brüning
Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main | Institut für deutsche Literatur und ihre Didaktik
Freies Deutsches Hochstift
Historisch-kritische Edition von Goethes Faust