Print

Print


Or why not use @facs ?

On 18/03/18 04:33, James Cummings wrote:
>
>
> Martin,
>
>
> Sure, if I wanted to be explicit in my example I might use @corresp as 
> you suggest pointing between the two. I tend to just use unspecified 
> loose correlation by ID numbers myself. So if I have Volpone001-facs 
> and Volpone001-text I'd document that in the project notes and write 
> the processing to assume that every $ID-text had a corresponding 
> $ID-facs or something similar to that.  But actually pointing at it 
> with corresp would be much clearer (and also enables the ability for 
> you to keep facsimiles and texts in separate documents, at separate 
> URIs if you wanted to be all distributed about it).
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> James
>
>
> --
>
> Dr James Cummings, [log in to unmask]
>
> School of English Literature, Language, and Linguistics, Newcastle 
> University
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list 
> <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Martin Mueller 
> <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* 18 March 2018 03:58:52
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: a question about surfaceGrp
>
> Thank you, James.  What you suggest was actually my first thought, but 
> then I thought it couldn’t possibly be that simple. So you have a 
> sequence of facsimile elements, each of them mapped to a text child of 
> group through some explicit linking, e.g.@corresp 
> <mailto:e.g.@corresp>.  If you want to treat the text as separate 
> documents (Volpone, Catiline etc. in the Jonson folio),  you just 
> combine the relevant facsimile with the relevant and do something 
> about the header.
>
> As long as there is some explicit link between the facsimile and 
> corresponding text elements, the use of surfaceGrp doesn’t really buy 
> you anything. Or does it?
>
> *From: *James Cummings <[log in to unmask]>
> *Date: *Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 10:48 PM
> *To: *"[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>, Martin 
> Mueller <[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject: *Re: a question about surfaceGrp
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> If I'm understanding correctly, you wanting to group surfaces relating 
> to a single text, why not just repeat <facsimile>, one corresponding 
> to each <text>? If it is that you want to group sets of facsimile 
> elements (for each <group>) then I don't think it is worth the hassle 
> personally.
>
> I'd just do something like:
>
> ====
>
> <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
>
> <teiHeader>...</teiHeader
>
>  <facsimile xml:id="facs1">
>
>     <surface xml:id="facs1-p1"></surface>
>
>  </facsimile>
>
>  <facsimile xml:id="facs2">
>
>     <surface xml:id="facs2-p1"></surface>
>
>  </facsimile>
>
>  <facsimile xml:id="facs3">
>
>     <surface xml:id="facs3-p1"></surface>
>
>  </facsimile>
>
> <text>
>
>    <group>
>
>       <text xml:id="text1">
>
>          <body><p/></body>
>
>       </text>
>
>       <text xml:id="text2">
>
>          <body><p/></body>
>
>       </text>
>
>    </group>
>
> </text>
>
>  <text xml:id="text3">
>
>     <body><p/></body>
>
>  </text>
>
> </TEI>
>
> =====
>
> But I may be misunderstanding your need?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> James
>
> --
>
> Dr James Cummings, [log in to unmask]
>
> School of English Literature, Language, and Linguistics, Newcastle 
> University
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list 
> <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Martin Mueller 
> <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* 17 March 2018 23:58:08
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* a question about surfaceGrp
>
> Is there a good way of grouping <facsimile> elements so that each 
> <text> childe of a <group> element  has its own <facsimile> section?
>
> I have the following use case in mind.  In our EarlyPrint project we 
> provide enriched versions of TCP texts, some of them with <facsimile> 
> elements that map to image sets currently in the Internet Archive.  
> You can find examples at 
> https://texts.earlyprint.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__texts.earlyprint.org&d=DwMF-g&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=rG8zxOdssqSzDRz4x1GLlmLOW60xyVXydxwnJZpkxbk&m=Hvk3aQiOIqvI5Y7BtUr1tc3aIAKBOwhRiAplVjNt-f4&s=EPZqoSmc6p80fqrnEKJui8nNA_5f7UQ7LH4JABKbMmY&e=>.
>
> Some TCP texts use the <group> element. Typical examples are the Ben 
> Jonson folio (A04632) or the three volumes of Hakluyt (A02495).  We 
> have mounted these texts on our site, but we also make them available 
> for downloading so that folks can use them for their various projects. 
>  There are reasons why one would want to keep all the texts of the 
> group together. There are also reasons why you would want to split 
> them. We split the Jonson plays because the predecessor of this site 
> was a drama site. A user who waits for the very long three volumes of 
> Hakluyt to load into eXist might have preferred a decision to split 
> the text into volumes. There is the additional factor that the 
> Internet Archive has images for the first two volumes, but not the 
> third. And so on.
>
> So it would be nice to have a solution that lets you split or combine 
> texts with minimal effort. If the facsimile section is one 
> undifferentiated stream of surface children from 1 to more than 1000, 
> it takes some (and probably manual) effort to figure out the start and 
> end points of surfaces for each <text> element.
>
> Is <surfaceGrp>  an appropriate element for establishing an explicit 
> relationship between a <text>child of <group> and its corresponding 
> image set? The use case given in the Guidelines talks about recto and 
> verso. If the answer to my question is ‘yes’, it might be a good idea 
> to mention a use case of this type so that it becomes apparent to 
> naďve users like myself to see right away that <surfaceGrp> can be 
> used for any number of purposes ranging from the micro structure of a 
> page (or even part of it) to the macrostructure of works and volumes.
>