Print

Print


Yes, I agree that the SIG on Libraries might be a good group through 
which to organize work on this.  In recent years the SIG has only worked 
on revising /Best Practices for TEI in Libraries/ – a project that Elli, 
Syd, and I have been working in the past few months to complete.

However, as I wrote to the SIG list back in November, Stefanie and I 
would like to step back as convenors of this SIG.  No one has 
volunteered to take over, but I wonder if there are people interested in 
the topic below that might form a new cohort of SIG members and from 
whom a new SIG convenor (or co-convenors) might emerge.

Kevin

On 5/13/18 11:17 PM, Martin Mueller wrote:
>
> This is indeed a very big problem and raises all manner of 
> bibliographical and ethical problems. We’ have pushed that can down 
> the road in our EarlyProject project, which takes as its source a TCP 
> transcription but adds different kinds of values through linguistic 
> annotation and some other steps. I lack the bibliographical or 
> technical expertise to come up with a good solution, but I know it’s a 
> can that we cannot push down the road much longer. It would be good to 
> have  some discussion of this in the Guidelines. There may not be a 
> single solution, but there certainly should be some guidance about 
> what is practical and proper.
>
> Would this be a good topic for the TEI in Libraries group to pick up? 
> That certainly is a group of people who know a lot about the 
> intersection of bibliography and TEI, which seems to be the sweet or 
> sore spot of this problem.
>
> Martin Mueller
>
> *From: *"TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list" 
> <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Lou Burnard 
> <[log in to unmask]>
> *Reply-To: *Lou Burnard <[log in to unmask]>
> *Date: *Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 4:06 PM
> *To: *"TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list" 
> <[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject: *sourceDesc best practice
>
> As more and more digital texts get produced and then repurposed 
> (curated?) into TEI, I am sure more and more people have had to face 
> the problem of how properly to represent their pedigree (the text's, 
> not the people's) in the sourceDesc. But I haven't yet found any very 
> clear indication of recommended practice in this respect, or not one I 
> like much at any rate.
>
> Here's a far from unusual scenario. The project is producing a 
> collection of literary texts in TEI, many of which are already 
> digitized in page image, or HTML, or some other non TEI format. They 
> may even be in TEI, but it's not the same as the TEI we want in our 
> project. The project has defined a rather strict and specific TEI 
> schema, and everything has to be converted to it. Consequently, it 
> needs to record in the sourceDesc up to three bibliographic 
> descriptions -- one for the digital source used, one for the print 
> source from which that digital version derives, and possibly one or 
> more others for sources used to modify the primary digital source.  I 
> don't think it's good enough just to list the three bibls (if bibls 
> they be) because that loses information about the relationships 
> amongst them. So here is an example of how I am thinking of doing this:
>
>     |<sourceDesc>|
>
>     |<bibl>|
>
>     |<ref
>     target=|"http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k931128v"<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gallica.bnf.fr_ark-3A_12148_bpt6k931128v&d=DwMFaQ&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=rG8zxOdssqSzDRz4x1GLlmLOW60xyVXydxwnJZpkxbk&m=UiXVBp1MeFGUHJWz6fnhbSU1EUDiOrlqrNPB-4Cr1L4&s=xdDUERbpxAGJGoX8DaNL9TgLZmN6NW68uGqUc9LvmPw&e=>|>
>     Tatiana Leïlof roman parisien (édition numerisée) </ref>|
>
>     |<publisher> gallica.bnf.fr / Bibliothèque nationale de France
>     </publisher>|
>
>     |<idno type="ARK">12148/bpt6k931128v</idno>|
>
>     |<relatedItem type="printSource">|
>
>     |  <bibl><title>Tatiana Leïlof , roman parisien, par Édouard
>     Rod</title>|
>
>     |  <publisher>E. Plon, Nourrit et Cie</publisher>|
>
>     |  <pubPlace>Paris</pubPlace>|
>
>     |  <date>1886</date>|
>
>     |</bibl>|
>
>     |</relatedItem>|
>
>     |</bibl>|
>
>     |</sourceDesc>|
>
>
> I think this shows rather nicely that the source of the text in the 
> header of which this appears is a digital text published by the BNF 
> with the identifier shown, the print source for which is the title 
> published in Paris in 1886.`Now suppose that the digital source used 
> for the project has been collated with a (fictitious) 20th c edition 
> to create our new TEI version. I can just add another relatedItem 
> within the outer bibl, distinguishing it by means of its  @type attribute:
>
> |<relatedItem type="collatedWith">|
> |  <bibl><title>Tatiana Leïlof , roman parisien, par Édouard Rod</title>|
> |  <publisher>Gallimard</publisher>|
> |  <pubPlace>Paris</pubPlace>|
> |  <date>1902</date>|
> |</bibl>|
> |</relatedItem>|
> ||
> ||
> |My question to the list is : does this look reasonable? and if you 
> were (or have been) faced with this scenario, how would you deal with 
> it? I know, I know, you'd use RDF. But say you want to humour an old 
> man, and do everythng in TEI :-) |
> ||