Fwd: Re: Workshop on Transcription of Medieval MSS at Berkeley April 26 (fwd)

[Merrilee Proffitt]

At 09:33 AM 5/3/2002 +0200, M. J. Driscoll wrote:
> >  From Charles Faulhaber:
> >
> > >In the teiheader, it seems to me that there needs to be a "repository
> > >statement," a place where one can record explicitly the name and location
> > >of the repository that owns the manuscript being transcribed. We've used
> > ><bibl> as a stopgap, but it really isn't a bibliographical entry.
> > >
> > >Any suggestions?
>
>This is precisely what the <msIdentifier> element, which goes in the
><sourceDesc> in the <teiHeader> and can contain the subelements
><country>, <region>, <settlement>, <institution>, <repository>,
><collection> and <idno>, is meant to do.   Of course, it hasn't
>actually been adopted by the TEI yet, but hey, you can't have
>everything.  There is, incidentally, no difference of opinion on this
>point, so far as I am aware, between the MASTERites and the
>Dutschke/Proffitt camp.

Agreed.  It does seem useful beyond manuscript items, however (ms items 
defined in the large sense).  I think more provenance-y information should 
be available at the sourcedesc level.

<p>> > >
> > >I'm still struggling with the correct coding of words so that they can be
> > >extracted correctly for the purposes of concordances, word lists, and the
> > >like. Thus a word can be broken across two lines, but there needs to be
> > >some way to bring the two parts back together. It can have all sorts of
> > >abbreviations and addition-deletion combinations; but you still have to be
> > >able to extract the word with the addition but minus the deletion.
> >
> > and later:
> >
> > >I've seen no solutions on either the repository or the word problems.
> > >David Seaman suggested using <orig> as a workaround, and it does work, but
> > >in fact that actually flips the relationship, since what one is making is
> > >_not_ the original reading but the cleaned up editorial reading. In some
> > >sense it's the same relationship as between <sic> and <cor>.
> > >
> > >I think that TEI needs a <w> with a lot fewer constraints on what can go
> > >inside.
>
>We've run into exactly the same problem here in the Old Norse
>speaking.world.  In order to do the sorts of things manuscript people
>(at least) want to do, <w> needs both more attributes, REG, for
>example, and something for the "cleaned up editorial reading"(if
>different from the regularised form - we've been using REND, but
>I'm not completely happy with it) and, as Charles says, fewer
>constraints on what can go inside.  At the moment, one cannot have
><abbr> or <expan>, <orig> or <reg>, <add> or <del> and so on
>inside <w>, which renders it fairly useless for transcription purposes.
>The alternative would be a new element, called, say, <word>, but
>why bother?
>
>Matthew