[tei-council] encoding page scans

[Conal Tuohy]

Conal:

> > <snip/> The main thing, to my
> > 
> >>mind, is that the guidelines should clearly document some standard
> >>practice that doesn't involve treating page scans as 
> figures, or making
> >>custom extensions to the TEI schema.

Dot:
> > yes, yes, yes

Lou:
> No no no! In P5 we have a generic <graphic> and a generic <bitmap> 
> element which could surely be used to mark the presence of a 
> pagescan if 
> you like. Whether you want to wrap them up in a (P5) <figure>  or in 
> something else is a different question, of course. 

Page scans are surely not figures?

What are the intended semantics of <graphic> when not contained in a
<figure>? Should <figure> be reserved for formal figures, and bare
<graphic> used for everything else? 

I haven't seen the <bitmap> element ... I will take a look.

> Also, at P5, you 
> can't use the TEI without doing some kind of "custom extensions", so 
> there's nothing to be afraid of there!

I'm sure I don't understand what you meant by that :-) but to clarify
what I meant above: I think there should be a standard encoding in TEI
(i.e. a standard module, not one that people have to write themselves)
which defines markup for page facsimiles. 

I would be interested in the idea that a light-weight encoding practice
(such as is commonly used today) might be mapped to a more sophisticated
one using ODD. So a sophisticated module would provide a rich semantic
basis, for interchange, and a light-weight extension module could be
used as a shorthand for the common simple case of one image file per pb
element. I'm not sure how easy it is in ODD to map something simple like
<pb n="1" url="page1.jpg"/> to a more generally-capable markup -
especially if the more general markup linked to graphic elements encoded
in the teiHeader or something. Do any of the ODD experts have a feel for
that? Is it feasible at all?

> p.s. shouldnt this conversation be going on on tei-l?

Perhaps?