Print

Print


Dear all,

This message to let you know that I am reading carefully your answers since
this morning and I do thank you. As soon as I would have cleared up my
mind, I will try to participate to the dialogue too.

Fortunately, I think our cases are more simple:
1- the most recent layer (most of the time legible)
2- older layers (one or more) with ambiguous traces only.

The most recent layer (1) is distinct from the older layers (2) that were
deleted to reuse the surface. It is almost impossible to make any
distinction among older layers, so,  in the encoding, they will stay
altogether as "older layers". Both (1) and (2) are containing accounts
information of shops (price, clients' name). Nothing very complex. The
difference between each layer is that when a transaction was over, the
surface was deleted to be reused for a new transaction. So it refers to two
different moments, transactions, actions and texts, even if they belong to
the same period of time (even maybe the same year or week).

Thank you very much for your help,

ML

2016-06-20 17:00 GMT+02:00 Matthew James Driscoll <[log in to unmask]>:

> If there were revisions within one (or both) of the text layers these
> could be dealt with quite simply using <change>, I would have thought. You
> have the undertext, then you have the overtext, then you have the revisions
> to the overtext -- or whatever. Don't see the problem.
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Lou Burnard [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 20 June 2016 16:43
> To: Matthew James Driscoll; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: palimpsest
>
> Fair points both. But am I alone in thinking that the different layers
> found in a palimpsest are not really the same kind of beast as the
> different layers in a series of changes resulting in creation of a
> single text? And if you actually wanted to say that one layer of your
> palimpsest is  (say) a 10th century recensement of a 9th century text,
> while the other is a 12th century original how would you do that?
>
>
> On 20/06/16 16:31, Matthew James Driscoll wrote:
> > It is true that the definition of <creation> in the Guidelines is
> "contains information about the creation of a text". The definition of
> <change>, however, says that it "documents a change or set of changes made
> during the production of a source document". I assume "document" is here
> used in the sense of text-bearing object (as you yourself use it in your
> comment); it would be odd to use it to mean text.
> >
> > In a note to <listChange> it says: "When this element appears within the
> creation element it documents the set of revision campaigns or stages
> identified during the evolution of the original text." I don't see why
> rubbing the whole thing out and writing something else on top couldn't be
> described as a "revision campaign".
> >
> > Matthew
> > ________________________________________
> > From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list [
> [log in to unmask]] on behalf of Lou Burnard [
> [log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: 20 June 2016 15:54
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: palimpsest
> >
> > <creation> is intended to hold information about the creation of the
> > TEXT, not the document/s attesting it. For example, suppose we encode
> > the text of a poem known to have circulated in manuscript form during
> > the 16th century, but of which no copy text survives earlier than the
> > 20th. The profileDesc/creation  might talk about the fact that the poem
> > was created in the 16th c; the sourceDesc should describe the 20th c.
> > source document/s from which we made the encoding; the revisionDesc
> > should describe the history of the encoded version itself./s
> >
> > This seems quite unambiguous to me in the current description of
> > <creation> in the Guidelines, (probably because I wrote it).
> >
> > In the case of a  palimpsest there would be therefore be  two or more
> > <creation>  elements , one for each distinct text represented on a
> > layer.  Matthew's proposed encoding doesn't seem to work for that
> > reason: though I agree that <listChange> is probably an appropriate and
> > certainly a convenient way of representing the different stages
> > identified in a single document. I think I'd put the <listChange> inside
> > <origin>
> >
> >
> > On 20/06/16 15:34, Torsten Schaßan wrote:
> >> Dear Matthew, dear all,
> >>
> >> this is something I always "struggle" with: Does the description within
> <profileDesc> relate to the text of the TEI file or to the text of the
> document represented, i.e. described, transcribed etc, in the TEI file?
> >>
> >> If it were the latter should the Guidelines express this better by
> opposing it to the <revisionStmt>. And I would wonder about the relation
> between <creation> on the one hand and <origin> on the other.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Torsten
> >>
> >> --
> >> Torsten Schassan - Digitale Editionen - Abteilung Handschriften und
> Sondersammlungen
> >> Herzog August Bibliothek, Postfach 1364, D-38299 Wolfenbuettel, Tel.:
> +49-5331-808-130 (Fax -165)
> >> Handschriftendatenbank: http://diglib.hab.de/?db=mss
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>    Von:   Matthew James Driscoll <[log in to unmask]>
> >>    An:   <[log in to unmask]>
> >>    Gesendet:   20.06.2016 13:45
> >>    Betreff:   Re: palimpsest
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear Marion,
> >>
> >>    The most obvious way of dealing with palimpsests, it seems to me, is
> to use the <listChange> element in the TEI Header, as in the following
> (made-up) example:
> >>
> >>         <profileDesc>
> >>            <creation>
> >>               <listChange>
> >>                  <change xml:id="UT" notBefore="0801" notAfter="0900"
> target="#UT-Item01 #MS101-01r-UT #UT-text01">Original writing, s.
> IX</change>
> >>                  <change xml:id="OT" notBefore="1251" notAfter="1300"
> target="#OT-Item02 #MS101-01r-OT #OT-text02">Overtext, s. XIII 2/2</change>
> >>               </listChange>
> >>            </creation>
> >>         </profileDesc>
> >>
> >>    One can then also point to these "changes" in the MS description:
> >>
> >>                   <msContents>
> >>                      <msItem xml:id="UT-Item01" change="#UT">
> >>                         <locus from="1r" to="1v"/>
> >>                         <title>Medical treatise</title>
> >>                         <textLang mainLang="gr"/>
> >>                      </msItem>
> >>                      <msItem xml:id="OT-Item02" change="#OT">
> >>                         <locus from="1r" to="1v"/>
> >>                         <title>Hymn</title>
> >>                         <textLang mainLang="la"/>
> >>                      </msItem>
> >>                   </msContents>
> >>
> >>    In the facsimile:
> >>
> >>          <surface xml:id="MS101-01r" ulx="0" uly="0" lrx="700"
> lry="1000" change="#UT">
> >>             <zone xml:id="MS101-01r-UT" rotate="90" ulx="0" uly="0"
> lrx="700" lry="1000">
> >>                <graphic url="graphic-01r-UT.jpg"/>
> >>             </zone>
> >>             <zone xml:id="MS101-01r-OT" ulx="0" uly="0" lrx="700"
> lry="1000" change="#OT">
> >>                <graphic url="graphic-01r-OT.jpg"/>
> >>             </zone>
> >>          </surface>
> >>
> >>    And in the transcription:
> >>
> >>         <body>
> >>             <div xml:id="UT-text01" change="#UT">
> >>                <pb xml:id="UT-f1r" facs="#MS101-01r-UT"/>
> >>                <!-- text of undertext here -->
> >>             </div>
> >>             <div xml:id="OT-text01" change="#OT">
> >>                <pb xml:id="OT-f1r" facs="#MS101-01r-OT"/>
> >>                <!-- text of overtext here -->
> >>             </div>
> >>          </body>
> >>
> >>    Slightly belt-and-braces perhaps, but it certainly makes clear what
> is what.
> >>
> >>    All the best,
> >>    Matthew
> >>
> >>    M. J. Driscoll
> >>    Arnamagnæan Institute
> >>    University of Copenhagen
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----------------
> >>
> >> From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list [
> [log in to unmask]] on behalf of Marion LAMÉ [[log in to unmask]]
> >>    Sent: 20 June 2016 00:22
> >>    To: [log in to unmask]
> >>    Subject: palimpsest
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear colleagues,
> >>
> >>
> >>    In order to follow already existing habits, we are looking for some
> examples of encoding for palimpsest texts, that is:
> >>    - erasing intentionally and entirely or most of the surface of the
> TBO: some symbols are still observable and eventually readable on
> this/these older layer(s).
> >>    - reusing the same surface to write another text, sometimes totally
> different from the previous one: this most recent layer on the manuscript
> is usually more readable than the older one / the olders.
> >>
> >>    Palimpsest texts have a "semantic baggage" that is a bit different
> from similar writing processes such as the two following examples:
> >>    - erasing part of the written surface (e.g.: a word or a letter) and
> rewrite for correcting a mistake for instance; in such an example both
> writings belong to the same layer and the writing process belongs to a same
> intention / moment / production.
> >>    - erasing and leave this textual phenomena visible such as in the
> cases of damnatio memoriae on some inscriptions.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> We have searched in the Mark up list and TEI-L list archives and we
> have not found yet any previous messages that was convincing enough and
> definitive practice. The most interesting message seems to suggest to use
> the <altidentifier> with a @type + a value  such as "palimpsest". But it
> also seems to refer to another description process, that is when one should
> collect several versions of a same text from various TBO.
> https://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=TEI-L;ae9cfb92.1102
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Could several <div> and / or <ab> be used to encode the overlapping
> texts on a same TBO + some attribute (@type ?) + a value ("palimpsest" ?) ?
> >>
> >>    What are your habits describe each layer of texts that are
> overlapping in a palimpsest manuscript?
> >>
> >>
> >>    Would some of you be kind enough to share their previous experiences
> (XML code and / or links), please?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yours,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Marion Lamé
> >>
>
>