Print

Print


Hi Paolo,

"urn:" is an existing scheme:

<https://www.w3.org/Addressing/URL/URI_URN.html>

so you don't want to use it for your private URI scheme. In addition, 
the presence of multiple colons in your existing referencing scheme is 
probably not such a good idea -- I think the structure comes from 
Perseus, doesn't it?

I might be inclined to choose another character to represent the colons 
in the eventual output, and then in your prefixDef, convert them to the 
colons:

perseus:latinLit|stoa0234a.stoa001|2.53.8-2.53.12

then your prefixDef can reconstruct the complete URL to access the 
relevant part of the target document.

Does that make sense?
Martin


On 2016-06-13 02:04 PM, Paolo Monella wrote:
> 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 The current segmentation of my text (of my an unpublished IX century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?