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?
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"/> <!-- 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/"/> <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]>