Print

Print


Il 13/06/2016 10:16, Lou Burnard ha scritto:
> At the risk of staying the obvious, the @source and ,@target attributes
> both take Uri values. So you could use them directly to supply your CTS
> values. No need for cref.

Thank you, Lou -- it was useful to me. So I could just replace

<ref cRef="urn:cts:latinLit:stoa0234a.stoa001:2.53.8-2.53.12" type="source">

with

<seg source="urn:cts:latinLit:stoa0234a.stoa001:2.53.8-2.53.12" 
type="source"> ?

The current segmentation of my text (of my an unpublished IX century 
manuscript) is:

<body>
   <ab>

     <ref>
       <w/>...
     </ref>

     <ref>
       <w/>...
     </ref>

     ...
   </ab>
   <ab>

     <ref>
       <w/>...
     </ref>

     ...
   </ab>
...
</body>

Where <ab>s mark thematically distinct portion of the text.

(I tought of not using any <p> because there is no typographical 
'paragraph' in my text. So I can't use <div> either, because a hierarchy 
like <body> / <div> / <w> would not be allowed.)

Right now, below the <ab>-level, the whole text is segmented into a 
number of <ref> elements, some with URNs like

<ref cRef="urn:cts:latinLit:stoa0234a.stoa001:2.53.8-2.53.12" type="source">

and some which I am temporarily (illegally) marking as

<ref cRef="unknown" type="source">

Thus, I mark that I know the late-antiquity sources of some portions of 
the text, but that I don't know the sources of others.

I am now thinking that I could use this hierarchy instead:

<body>
   <ab>

     <seg source="urn:cts:latinLit:stoa0234a.stoa001:2.53.8-2.53.12">
       <w/>...
     </seg>

     <seg source="unkown">
       <w/>...
     </seg>

   ...
   </ab>
   <ab>

     <seg source="urn:cts:latinLit:stoa0234a.stoa001:2.53.8-2.53.23">
       <w/>...
     </seg>

   ...
   </ab>
   ...
</body>

Going back in-topic on @cRef and @source:

1) Would <seg> plus @source be appropriate here?

2) Specifically, is @source appropriate to mark the relation between
  a) the text of a IX century Latin epitome (and mash-up) of 
late-antiquity grammarians like Priscian and Donatus
  b) and the text of those grammarians?
The use of @source in the Guidelines seems to be more specific (the 
source of a quotation, or the like), but I hear that @source is going to 
go global.

3) I still need a solution for those passages that have an unknown 
source. Neither @cRef or @source can accept a value like "unknown" (<seg 
source="unkown">), as it's no URN or URI. A solution might be not 
marking those chunks at all, but for processing ease I'd still like to 
mark them with a <seg> (or <ref>) element. Any ideas?

Thank you,
Paolo


>
> Sent from my Honor Mobile
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: cRef usage
> From: Paolo Monella
> To: [log in to unmask]
> CC:
>
> I am using @cRef with CITE/CTS URNs to encode that a passage from the
> medieval manuscript I am encoding has a specific passage of Priscian as
> source:
> <ref cRef="urn:cts:latinLit:stoa0234a.stoa001:2.53.8-2.53.12" type="source">
>
> Should I switch to the <prefixDef> mechanism too?
>
> Paolo
>
>
> Il 12/06/2016 14:29, Lou Burnard ha scritto:
>> Yes, and no.... it rather depends whether "#vergil-aenide" is a valid
>> URI in your document.
>>
>> Sent from my Honor Mobile
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: cRef usage
>> From: Thierry Pellé
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> CC:
>>
>> Hello,
>>          short, fast and lousy but useful ! ;-)
>>
>> Hence, if I understand well, I may define
>> <prefixDef ident="cref:"
>>   matchPattern="(.+?), (.+?)"
>>   replacementPattern="#$1-$2">
>>   <p>
>>          Replaces cRef references.
>>   </p>
>> </prefixDef>
>>
>> and then use
>> <quote ref="cref:Virgile, Enéide">
>>   ...
>> </quote>
>>
>> That sounds good.
>>
>> Thank you!
>> Thierry
>>
>> Le dimanche 12 juin 2016 à 08:00 -0400, Syd Bauman a écrit :
>>> [Fast-and-lousy response from an airport.]
>>>
>>> The @cRef mechanism has essentially been superceded by the
>>> <prefixDef> mechanism, which can be used on any pointer.
>>>
>>> >     Guidelines specifies that @cRef "specifies the destination of
>>> >     the pointer by supplying a canonical reference". I wonder why
>>> >     only gloss, ptr, ref, term provide such a canonical forme for a
>>> >     pointer. For instance, why is it not possible to specifies the
>>> >     @souce attribute of a quote as a canonical pointer?