Dear Elena, Franz, list,

thanks for your replies!

Am 20.06.2016 um 15:15 schrieb Franz Fischer:
>>> <app>
>>>    <lem>standard reading<add hand="#h1" place="above"><metamark
>>>       function="signe-de-renvoi"
>>>       rend="curve"/></add></lem>
>>>    <rdg hand="#h1" rend="margin">alternate reading<metamark
>>>       function="variant" rend="ṭa"/></rdg>
>>> </app>
>>> What I am especially unsure about is:
>>> * The position of the metamark entries as children of the lem/rdg.
>> I think it is well marked up as a child of <add>

Okay, thank you for the feedback!

>>> * The @rend on rdg (abusing @rend here for @place).
>> Mmmh I’d prefer to have an <add place=””> within the <rdg> which will
>> also match the fact that the <metamark> is within an <add>

I kind of like that. It is a bit redundant, but at least the semantics
of @place and metamark within add are conherent.

> If the corrector/commentator (h1) is defined as a witness in its own
> right you don't have to indicate neither place nor the fact that reading
> is an addition. Both could be generally described in the listWit within
> witness. But I understand you want to combine a critical text version
> with a document-centered transcription all in one document.

Yes, I agree with your diagnosis – and this all-in-one approach might
well be the cause for the troubles.

> As for the categorisation of the reading, what about an @type="ṭa" on rdg?
> Or @ana="ṭa" on metamark?

I like the rdg/@type suggestion, that should make clearer what actually
happens. I’ll add that!


Dr. Frederik Elwert

Digital Humanities Coordinator
Center for Religious Studies
Ruhr-University Bochum

Universitätsstr. 90a
D-44780 Bochum

Phone +49(0)234 32-23024