[tei-council] facsimile odd -- what is a facsimile?
arianna.ciula at kcl.ac.uk
Mon Jul 23 11:04:48 EDT 2007
Lou Burnard wrote:
> In fact, it seems to me the relationship between a transcription of a
> source and the original is almost identical to the relationship between
> a facsimile of it and the original. One translates a reading letter by
> letter, and the other translates a reading dot by dot, but they are both
> readings and as such I would like to give them the same ontological
> standing in my encoding.
I fully agree with this and therefore with the proposal of having a
no-mainly-textual representation encoded as the equivalent of <text>
rather than metadata, since the tei header will be useful to encode the
description of this image-based representation instead.
I am not sure <facsimile> is the best term, but can't suggest anything
better to represent a more general 'material' alternative to a textual
> In addition to this philosophical argument, let us not forget that for
> every one TEI-encoded digital text out there, there are probably a
> thousand digital facsimiles. Surely the TEI ought to be offering a way
> of encoding digital facsimile editions as well as digital
> transcriptions? There are quite a few places where the TEI Header is
> used to stock metadata about both kinds of digital object. Wouldn't it
> be nice to offer a way of growing one kind into the other without doing
> violence to the basic TEI model?
> If we are going to have markup which describes the page images
> themselves, as digital objects, then the set of page images constituting
> a work isa kind of "text" itself and should be treated as such. In
> short: my proposal is
> a) add a new element <facsimile> (or better word if we can think of one)
> b) change the content model of <TEI> and of <group> to permit
> (text|facsimile) where they currently permit <text>
> Note that I am not proposing a class model.textLike because I cannot
> think of any other kind of thing that might go in there -- I'd suggest
> that talking books, if we want to digitize them, are another form of
> DP: I'd
>> say that <pg> does belong in sourceDesc, however this doesn't mean it
>> doesn't also make sense to have it at the same level as <text>.
>> Perhaps it should be allowed in both places? Similar to msDescription,
>> where you can have them both in the header and in the body.
> I can see why the "bung em in the header" policy is convenient, for
> example in the case where you just have a few page images to illustrate
> particularly vexing parts of your manuscript, so I am ready to concede
> this as a possibility. But I still think it's Wrong with a capital R.
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
Dr Arianna Ciula
Centre for Computing in the Humanities
King's College London
London WC2R 2LS (UK)
Tel: +44 (0)20 78481945
More information about the tei-council