[tei-council] stemma modeling
David J Birnbaum
djbpitt+tei at pitt.edu
Thu Aug 2 09:35:29 EDT 2007
To adapt the markup used in my stemma report to current TEI practice:
1) Use TEI <eTree> where I use <node>.
2) Change the attributes for identification and pointing as James proposed.
3) Change my <contaminates> to TEI <relation>, as Arianna proposed.
Problem: <relation> is not currently permitted inside <eTree>, and it
would need to be for this to work. I think the question for Council,
then, is whether we want to permit <relation> inside <eTree>. If so, the
adaptation is easy, and we can fold my (modified) stemma example into
the graphing chapter as an example of using <relation> to model a
contaminated tree. If not, we should proceed without the proposed stemma
Argument for: A stemma is not a tree, but it can be understood as a tree
with something else (and not simply as a non-tree). Accordingly,
modeling it as a tree (with <eTree>) but adding something to reflect the
contamination (<relation>) conforms to what's really going on.
Argument against: A contaminated tree is by definition a non-tree, and
tree-oriented markup (such as <eTree>) is therefore inappropriate.
For what it's worth, I find the argument in favor more useful for those
who might want to model stemmata.
More information about the tei-council