Print

Print


Umm, I thought I would be able to silently redirect this message to the 
list, where it I think belongs, but the list manager was too smart for this.

The message came to me -- erroneously, I believe -- from 
[log in to unmask]

On 12/06/15 09:55, Misha Broughton wrote:
> I don't see a conflict between <w> and <choice>, and I think the
> "choice" (HA!) Is really between whether you are trying to encode that
> there is a word and that word is inscribed one of two ways, or that
> there is a choice between two words with the same meaning and different
> inscriptions.  If it's the former, if say put the choice inside the
> word, if the latter, put the word(s) inside the choice.
>
> On Jun 11, 2015 5:50 PM, "Piotr BaƄski" <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>     Dear Torsten,
>
>     Like I said in an earlier message, to me, the choice between (b) and
>     (c) depends on some project-internal assumptions -- if for some
>     reason it would be easier for your processing or visualisation tools
>     to be presented with a continuous stream of <w>s and, at the same
>     time, the usage of <choice> would be heavily restricted, then well,
>     one could consider (c). Choice (b) requires adjustments to how you
>     count <w>s or how you point at them for visualisation (and there's a
>     few more hidden assumptions here).
>
>     As far as semantic equivalence between <w> and <choice> is
>     concerned, then from the "lexical" point of view, there is none.
>      From the "constructional" point of view, in those cases that you
>     have selected, there might be equivalence on the bottom-up route,
>     but from the top-down perspective (and as usual depending on some
>     other assumptions), you might need an extra test for each occurrence
>     of <choice> to see if it's really meant to stand for <w>, which
>     altogether might negatively influence the processing time and
>     complexity.
>
>     Yet another bunch of assumptions concerns the way in which the
>     markup is to be constructed, and by who. It may sometimes be easier
>     to have encoding guidelines in which every instance of a word is to
>     be clad in <w> tags, and <choice> used for (... | ...) at whichever
>     level.
>
>     HTH and best regards,
>
>        Piotr
>
>
>     On 11/06/15 16:45, Torsten Schassan wrote:
>
>         Dear Magdalena, dear Piotr,
>
>         thanks for your answers and your thoughts.
>
>         The reason why I put "(sometimes)" in the subject line was
>         exactly that
>         in those cases where <choice> contains just that single "word" I
>         do see
>         the semantic equivalence. Nonetheless, I think that <choice> doesn't
>         target at sub-word level but rather at words or multiple words.
>         Thus,
>         I'm surprised that both of you consider to go for (c), I thought
>         (b) to
>         be more natural.
>
>         To answer to your other questions:
>
>             - Will your <w>s carry IDs? And if so, for what purpose(s)?
>
>
>         <w> might carry IDs but its main purpose is to deal with the <lb/>
>         according to the needs of the reader: Either show line breaks
>         and the
>         separator or to suppress both. Another typical application in our
>         digital library is to attach to it the coordinates of the word
>         on the
>         page in order to highlight a search result.
>
>             - Do you envision using <choice> for anything else than
>             hyphenated words?
>
>
>         Yes, we use it for all possible editorial pairs (abbr+expan,
>         sic+corr,
>         orig+reg), it is a relatively rare case that one of these comes
>         with an
>         additional line break. Thus we've got "a stack" of incidents
>         that the
>         XSLT has to take care of during publication.
>
>         Best, Torsten
>
>
>         Am 11.06.2015 um 16:13 schrieb Magdalena Turska:
>
>             Dear Torsten,
>
>             I think the third option is probably most typical situation
>             - the
>             abbreviation is at the word level so you can wrap the
>             <choice> in a <w>.
>
>             As to why you want to mark up words it's a whole different
>             story. You said "in
>             our editions we usually wrap words (tokens) that go across
>             lines in <w>,
>             e.g. <w>con=<lb/>silio</w>". Are they the only words you
>             mark with <w>? If
>             so, why do they deserve this special treatment? I think only
>             answering
>             these questions would allow to judge one way of encoding
>             "better" than the
>             other.
>
>             Magdalena
>
>             On 11 June 2015 at 14:28, Torsten Schassan <[log in to unmask]
>             <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>                 Dear all,
>
>                 in our editions we usually wrap words (tokens) that go
>                 across lines in
>                 <w>, e.g. <w>con=<lb/>silio</w>.
>
>                 Now, that word is abbreviated and that fact would be
>                 represented using
>                 choice/abbr+expan.
>
>                 Would you say <choice> works on the same level as <w>
>                 thus only one of
>                 them is needed, or not? Indeed, <w> is part of
>                 model.segLike while
>                 <choice> can contain larger portions of text thus
>                 belonging to
>                 model.linePart and model.pPart.editorial.
>
>                 Which encoding option would you consider be best?
>
>                 a: mutually exclusiveness
>                 either just <w>con=<lb/>silio</w>
>                 or
>                 <choice>
>                     <abbr>co&#x0304;=<lb/>silio</abbr>
>                     <expan>con=<lb/>silio</expan>
>                 </choice>
>
>                 b: <w> inside
>                 <choice>
>                     <abbr><w>co&#x0304;=<lb/>silio</w></abbr>
>                     <expan><w>con=<lb/>silio</w></expan>
>                 </choice>
>
>                 c: <w> outside
>                 <w>
>                     <choice>
>                       <abbr>co&#x0304;=<lb/>silio</abbr>
>                       <expan>con=<lb/>silio</expan>
>                     </choice>
>                 </w>
>
>
>                 Curious, best, Torsten
>
>                 --
>                 Torsten Schassan
>                 Digitale Editionen
>                 Abteilung Handschriften und Sondersammlungen
>                 Herzog August Bibliothek, Postfach 1364, D-38299
>                 Wolfenbuettel
>                 Tel.: +49-5331-808-130 <tel:%2B49-5331-808-130> (Fax
>                 -165), schassan {at} hab.de <http://hab.de>
>
>                 Handschriftendatenbank: http://diglib.hab.de/?db=mss
>
>
>
>