Print

Print


Thanks for posting this example. I am a bit puzzled by the fact that it 
seems to contain two bibliographic descriptions of the same thing (the 
1910 edition of the work), one using bibl, and one using biblFull. Is 
that common practice in the DTA? It seems rather misleading -- if you 
had a text for which there were two different sources,  would there be 
*four* descriptions?

The place to indicate the source for a text is clearly the sourceDesc. 
The idea behind my encoding proposal is to show that the immediate 
source for my text is the Gutenberg text. So I use a bibl with the title 
that PG gives its text, and probably other information like the date it 
was first published in PG could be added. But I also want to show that 
the PG text itself has a source, and that is the "related item". I might 
have taken information from that related item (pagebreaks for example) 
and added them into the PG text. So now I have two sources. My question 
remains: what's the best way of indicating clearly the relationship 
between those two sources?

To complicate matters, it's possible that I don't know the source for 
the PG text, of course, though I do know that it appears to be following 
the edition I've chosen as my copytext.


On 22/09/18 19:33, Frederike Neuber wrote:
> Dear Lou,
> the information about the original source text ist provided in
> <sourceDesc>, as in the following example:
>
> <sourceDesc>
>      <bibl type="M">Löwenfeld, Leopold: Student und Alkohol. München,
> 1910.</bibl>
>      <biblFull>
>          <titleStmt>
>              <title level="m" type="main">Student und Alkohol</title>
>              <author>
>                  <persName ref="http://d-nb.info/gnd/117168815">
>                      <surname>Löwenfeld</surname>
>                      <forename>Leopold</forename>
>                  </persName>
>              </author>
>          </titleStmt>
>          <editionStmt>
>              <edition n="1"/>
>          </editionStmt>
>          <publicationStmt>
>              <publisher>
>                  <name>M. Riegersche Universitäts-Buchhandlung</name>
>              </publisher>
>              <pubPlace>München</pubPlace>
>              <date type="publication">1910</date>
>          </publicationStmt>
>      </biblFull>
> </sourceDesc>
>
> So basically it is not mentioned here (as in your example) that it is the
> project gutenberg-version of "Student and Alkohol", which is also true,
> because after the conversion into DTA-base format it is not the gutenberg
> version anymore. The information that gutenberg is the source from which
> the source derives is, however, already caputered within the <respStmt>s.
> So the difference between your encoding and the DTA-encoding is, that you
> regard the gutenberg ebook-version as source text (while the original
> source is just a <relatedItem>, while the DTA regards the "original" book
> as source text. To me the latter seems at first sight more reasonable for
> my understanding of <sourceText>, but you might have an explanation for
> your choice of encoding <title>The Project Gutenberg EBook of Tono Bungay,
> by H. G. Wells</title> instead of <title>Tono Bungay</title> (+ the other
> bibl-components)?
>
> Best,
> Frederike
>
> Am Sa., 22. Sep. 2018 um 17:20 Uhr schrieb Lou Burnard <
> [log in to unmask]>:
>
>> Dear Frederike
>>
>> I am glad we are in agreement about the use of respStmt here. But how does
>> DTA record the source text (e.g. printed book) from which a source text
>> (e.g. gutenberg text) was derived?
>>
>> best
>>
>> Lou (apologetically unable to cope with German)
>>
>> On 21/09/18 18:13, Frederike Neuber wrote:
>>
>>   Dear Lou,
>>
>> in the German Textarchive are often integrated text and image resources
>> from the www, also from gutenberg.org. The base format of the German
>> Textarchiv forsees the provision of <respStmt> as you suggested too.
>> Compared to your suggestion, they provide several respStmt for tasks that
>> they defined as seperate; "provision of transcription", "provision of
>> images", "curation/conversion of data". While the former two most of the
>> times refer to sources on the WWW, the latter refers to specific persons
>> who had the task to actually integrate these existing sources into the new
>> context. Another difference to your suggestion is that the DTA-format
>> provides a date, to indicate when the transcription/image has been
>> integrated, which I think is very clever, since content on the internet can
>> change easy.
>>
>> Here is a code snippet with a few comments, that might be clearer than any
>> of my explanations:
>>
>>      <!-- respStmt for the transcription, taken from gutenberg.org -->
>>      <respStmt>
>>          <orgName>gutenberg.org</orgName>
>>          <resp>
>>              <note type="remarkResponsibility">Bereitstellung der
>> Texttranskription und Auszeichnung
>>                  in der Syntax von gutenberg.org.</note>
>>              <!-- note that during integration the transcription might have
>> changed -->
>>              <note type="remarkRevisionDTA">Bitte beachten Sie, dass die
>> aktuelle Transkription (und
>>                  Textauszeichnung) mittlerweile nicht mehr dem Stand zum
>> Zeitpunkt der Übernahme aus
>>                  gutenberg.org entsprechen muss.</note>
>>              <!-- source -->
>>              <ref target="
>> http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/2/9/3/2/29327/29327-h/29327-h.htm" <http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/2/9/3/2/29327/29327-h/29327-h.htm>/>
>>              <!-- import date -->
>>              <date type="importDTA">2013-03-18T13:54:31Z</date>
>>          </resp>
>>      </respStmt>
>>      <respStmt>
>>          <!-- respStmt fpr the images -->
>>          <orgName>gutenberg.org</orgName>
>>          <resp>
>>              <note type="remarkResponsibility">Bereitstellung der
>> Bilddigitalisate</note>
>>              <ref target="
>> http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/2/9/3/2/29327/29327-page-images/" <http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/2/9/3/2/29327/29327-page-images/>/>
>>              <date type="importDTA">2013-03-18T13:54:31Z</date>
>>          </resp>
>>      </respStmt>
>>      <respStmt>
>>          <!-- respStmt for the person who converted the gutenberg
>> source-text to the DTA-Base format -->
>>          <persName>
>>              <forename>Frederike</forename>
>>              <surname>Neuber</surname>
>>          </persName>
>>          <resp>
>>              <note type="remarkResponsibility">Konvertierung nach XML/TEI
>> gemäß
>>                  DTA-Basisformat.</note>
>>              <date type="importDTA">2013-03-18T13:54:31Z</date>
>>          </resp>
>>      </respStmt>
>>
>> In case you speak German, here is also a documentation.http://www.deutschestextarchiv.de/doku/basisformat/mdRespStmt.html
>> Hope that helps,
>>
>> Best,
>> Frederike
>>
>>
>>
>> Am Fr., 21. Sep. 2018 um 17:47 Uhr schrieb Gioele Barabucci <[log in to unmask]>:
>>
>>
>> On 21/09/2018 16:35, Lou NoMiddleName Burnard wrote:
>>
>> I have been thinking about how to represent economically and clearly the
>> bibliographic status of a digital text which is derived from another
>> one. For example, consider a Project Gutenberg text which we believe to
>> be a version of some specific print edition.
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>> Obviously one could add a whole lot more; I am trying to show just the
>> bare essentials here. What do you think?
>>
>>
>> Dear Lou,
>>
>> what about providing a TEI-mapping of PROV-O, the W3C provenance ontology?
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o
>>
>> PROV-O, for all its shortcomings, already takes into account FRBR,
>> something your example was pointing to (deliberately or accidentally).
>> The example for the relation prov:hadPrimarySource is a translated and
>> formatted text from the Gutenberg project. :)
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#hadPrimarySource
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> --
>> Gioele Barabucci <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>
>>