Print

Print


The process by which the work of the SIG you refer to was incorporated 
into the Guidelines is pretty exhaustively tracked in the discussions of 
the TEI Council at the time: if you want to trace the ebb and flow of 
discussion start with 
http://www.tei-c.org/Activities/Council/Meetings/tcm45.xml !

But in practice I think almost everything in the SIG draft you're 
referring to made it into the Guidelines, though with some changes. For 
example the "document" element is in P5, but rejoices now in the name of 
"sourceDoc".

In your example, I agree that <damage> is not appropriate. Your example 
illustrates nicely why the new elements were considered useful. As soon 
as you say "A text of two lines is broken into two fragments A and B 
such that ..." it's clear that the object you want to describe can be 
looked at from two perspectives: it is a (logical) text of two lines 
(the first being "bla di ... bla blo") but it is also an (physical) 
object of two fragments (A and B). You don't say whether these 
"fragments" are shards of pottery or bits of parchment or what, but that 
doesn't matter really:  what matters is that you are trying to describe 
both the carrier (the fragments) and the material carried on it. In TEI, 
you can use <text> for the latter and <sourceDoc> for the former. You 
have to decide whether to make one or the other the dominant hierarchy 
of your transcription, or provide both.

As an example of the latter choice, consider this:

<sourceDoc>
<zone>
<line>bla di</line>
<line>da dim</line>
</zone>
<zone>
<line>bla blo</line>
<line>dum</line>
</zone>
</sourceDoc>

<text>
<body>
<l>bla di <gap/> bla blo</l>
<l>da dim <gap/> dum </l>
</body>
</text>

(I've left out the detail you could supply to specify the alignment of 
the <zone> elements with respect to each other and the <surface> 
containing them, of course)

If you don't like the redundancy of this approach, there are various 
hacks for reducing it : I leave it to others to suggest them.


On 11/01/18 16:11, Stefan Baums wrote:
> I am working on material (fragmentary early Buddhist
> manuscripts) that calls for an encoding close to the
> physical level of the document, and have been using
> as one of my guidelines the work of the Manuscripts
> SIG on documents and genetic criticism:
>
>     http://www.tei-c.org/SIG/Manuscripts/genetic.html
>     http://www.tei-c.org/Activities/Council/Working/tcw19.html
>
> This work seems to be about eight years old now. The
> first page states that “[t]he Module has been
> accepted in principle by the TEI Council in April
> 2010 and the module is now ready for testing.” I can
> see that some of it (for instance the <line> element)
> has indeed made it into the TEI Guidelines, while
> other aspects (for instance the <document> element)
> have not.
>
> Is there some account somewhere of the criteria for
> inclusion or otherwise of the SIG’s proposals, or
> indeed any more recent work (design or application)
> in this area?
>
> One particular thing I am wondering about is how to
> express the following situation. A text of two lines
> is broken into two fragments A and B such that A
> contains the beginnings of each line, B the end of
> each line, and some part of the text in between (here
> marked with + signs) is missing:
>
>     A          B
>     bla di + + bla blo
>     da dim + + dum
>
> It seems to me that the <damage> element does not
> quite have the right meaning, since in the following
>
>     <damage group="A">
>       bla di
>     </damage>
>     <gap quantity="2"/>
>     <damage group="B">
>       bla blo
>     </damage>
>     <damage group="A">
>       da dim
>     </damage>
>     <gap quantity="2"/>
>     <damage group="B">
>       dum
>     </damage>
>
> the bits enclosed by <damage> are damaged only in the
> sense of being incomplete at the left or right edge.
>
> All best,
> Stefan Baums
>