Print

Print


I agree with Hugh.  Since we were both trained as classicists, this may be a hold-over from a world of print editions with extended and reflective remarks by an editor. That said, some things are worth holding over, and the proper place for a discursive and reflective introduction is <front>. On the other hand, a digital edition may include a lot of machine-readable metadata for which there are no equivalents in the print world. It may be a nice question whether the teiHeader is always the best place for such data.

On 10/29/18, 7:35 AM, "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list on behalf of Hugh Cayless" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:

    In haste, sitting in a dentist’s chair. My own tendency is almost the opposite. I view the introductory material as a first-class part of the edition, and so would tend to put it in <front>.
    
    All the best,
    Hugh
    
    Sent from my phone. 
    
    > On Oct 29, 2018, at 08:07, Thomas Stäcker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
    > 
    > Roberto, Patrick,
    > many thanks for your feedback. The argument of Patrick is exactly what I had in mind. I actually tend to abolish the <body><div type="introduction">  or <front> solution within <text> and move all the metadata to the header (in the case of a born digital edition), even if there is lot of plain text that extends what usually is understood by the term metadata. My feeling is, however, that there should be a sort of recommendation in the Guidlines addressing this issue, if there is broad consenus about it.  At least I am convinced that editorial metadata (what is annother expression for critical introduction) would be much better in future when we encourage editors to use the elaborated vocabulary available for the teiHeader instead of putting pertinent data to <text>.
    > Best,
    > Thomas
    > 
    > 
    >> Am 29.10.2018 um 10:31 schrieb Roberto Rosselli Del Turco:
    >> Hello Patrick,
    >> you don't have to convince *me*, since I fully agree with you (I would still consider <front> instead of the <teiHeader> as a legitimate place where to save your introduction to the edited text) on the encoding strategy.
    >> 
    >> This sort of decision typically arises with projects which have had a Web site to present the work being done for all the project's length, and feel it would be a good place to offer an introduction and/or other appropriate paratext. This is also the case of a web site offering distinct functionality when compared to the edition (the CPD site has a collaborative feature, a list of signa tabellionis for each notary, a timeline of events) which reinforces the idea of it actually being the "hub" of the digital edition, with the latter reachable as a separate location.
    >> 
    >> Best,
    >> 
    >> R
    >> 
    >> Il 29/10/18 10:19, Patrick Sahle ha scritto:
    >>>> Am 29.10.2018 um 08:49 schrieb Roberto Rosselli Del Turco:
    >>>> Dear Thomas,
    >>>> the first thing to decide is *where* you are going to publish the introduction for your digital edition, 
    >>> I find this argument quite surprising as I feel that more and more people see "the data" as "the edition" which is conceptually independent from arbitrary acts of publication (see my theory on transmedialization; and yes, I know about the limitations of such a claim).
    >>> With this feeling I totally understand Thomas' question which sheds some light on deeper ontological questions on electronic texts. For a spontaneous reaction I would say that everything depends on your own understanding  of text, text representation and critical editing.
    >>> If you emphasize that a critical introduction is describing a text that is containes in <text>, the header seems the obvious place to put that description
    >>> If you emphasize that the digital representation together with the critical introduction to it are an intellectual work in it's own right and autonomy, the body may contain both
    >>> But of course we are talking of two different texts here: a represented text that is talked about and the edition as another expression of a text
    >>> 
    >>> All known, I know. But I wonder whether there is broad consensus on this or still room for discussion?
    >>> Best wishes anyway, Patrick
    >>> 
    >>>> because some projects prefer to have a dedicated web site which is actually separate from the actual published edition; in the which case, you can have a minimal TEI header since everything is published elsewhere. See for instance the Codice Pelavicino Digitale:
    >>>> 
    >>>> http://pelavicino.labcd.unipi.it/
    >>>> 
    >>>> Note that in the digital edition proper you have *part* of a critical introduction, since the content of the <msDesc> element is available via the MS Desc button:
    >>>> 
    >>>> http://pelavicino.labcd.unipi.it/evt/
    >>>> 
    >>>> (very slow web server at the moment, please be patient).
    >>>> 
    >>>> We're considering supporting a full introduction to a digital edition in EVT directly inside the latter, however, by expanding the "Project Info" window. What would you think of that? Many scholars prefer a separate web site, but I'm starting to lean towards the "everything in the digital edition" solution.
    >>>> 
    >>>> Last note, if not in the header I would put such an introduction in the <front> element.
    >>>> 
    >>>> Best regards,
    >>>> 
    >>>> R
    >>>> 
    >>>> Il 29/10/18 08:32, Thomas Stäcker ha scritto:
    >>>>> Dear list,
    >>>>> even though I have been working with the TEI for a couple of years I am still uncertain about the function and role of the teiHeader versus a critical introduction that as a rule precedes every serious critical edition. I checked the archive of the list, but couldn‘t find any discussion or recommendation about that matter, but might have overlooked it. Currently we include the critical introduction in the body of the edition (<body><div type=„introduction“>). This solution is taken from examples of analog editions that are encoded according to the TEI and where it is evident that all parts of the text including the editorial introduction have to be represented in the digital version of it either. However, when we turn to a born digital edition things are less clear as we can populate the teiHeader with that kind of meta-information. In addition, the teiHeader offers markup that is especially designed and dedicated to describe that particular kind of information whereas the critical introduction in the body would be less normative. Accordingly, the critical introduction can be regarded as in a way redundant to the Header or even superfluous. My question is if there exists any recommondation about how a critical introduction shall be treated in born digital editions. I feel a teiHeader should be there anyway, but how is it to be distinguished from the critical introduction or how can this relation of the teiHeader to the critical introduction be defined? I'd be most grateful for any hint or recommendation.
    >>>>> Best
    >>>>> Thomas
    >>>>> 
    >>>> 
    >>>> 
    >>> 
    >>> -- 
    >>> Apl. Prof. Dr. Patrick Sahle
    >>> Universität zu Köln <http://www.uni-koeln.de> - Cologne Center for eHumanities (CCeH) <http://www.cceh.uni-koeln.de/>
    >>> Koordinierungsstelle Digital Humanities der Nordrhein-Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften <http://cceh.uni-koeln.de/DH-AWK/>
    >>> Data Center for the Humanities <http://www.dch.uni-koeln.de/>
    >>> Institut für Dokumentologie und Editorik <http://www.i-d-e.de>
    >>> @patrick_sahle <https://twitter.com/patrick_sahle> - @CCeHum <https://twitter.com/CCeHum> - @ideinfo <https://twitter.com/ideinfo> - @dhd2018 <https://twitter.com/dhd2018>
    >> 
    >> 
    > 
    > -- 
    > ***************************************
    > Prof. Dr. Thomas Stäcker
    > Direktor der
    > Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Darmstadt
    > Magdalenenstr. 8
    > 64289 Darmstadt
    > +49 (0)6151 16-76200
    > [log in to unmask]