[tei-council] [Fwd: Re: damage - what is it good for?]

[Lou Burnard]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: damage - what is it good for?
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:07:35 +0100
From: Gabriel Bodard <gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk>
To: Lou Burnard <lou.burnard at oucs.ox.ac.uk>
CC: TEI Council <tei-council at lists.village.virginia.edu>
References: <46DC1BC8.6040409 at oucs.ox.ac.uk>

We've never used <damage>, I don't think. (Although there was at some
time talk of using it to link a <supplied> and <gap> that are really
part of the same bit of damage. I didn't really see the point, since the
whole problem with linking such things was that they might cross div or
word structures. And now it appears that would have been abuse anyway.)
As you describe it, however, it is the sort of thing that an epigrapher
*would* want to record--deliberate or other damage to the surface of the
stone not affecting our ability to read the text. (For deliberate I
guess we use <del>.)

What *would* certainly be useful, however, is some way to indicate
precisely what you describe: separate bits of damage (whether indicated
by <gap>, <supplied>, <damage>, or <unclear>) that are in fact the
result of the same gouge out of the front of the stone, for example.
Traditionally both epigraphers and papyrologists indicate that a gap and
a supplied are part of the same damage by enclosing the two in a single
set of square brackets. E.g.:

[abc ...]

(we can restore "abc" but not the rest of whatever was in that bit of
damage... as opposed to:

[abc] [...]

= "abc" was lost because of (e.g.) surface wear, something else was lost
because of (e.g.) the stone being cut down for re-use, and can't be
restored)

So in summary I've never used <damage>, and the only time I'd be likely
to want to could arguably be handled by <unclear>--but unclear for us
has the very specific meaning that the letters so marked would not be
unambiguous outside of their context. Therefore I'd vote for keeping it,
but not scream and shout if I'm out-voted. :)

Best,

Gabby

Lou Burnard a écrit :
> As I proceed through PH wreaking havoc, I have come upon the <damage> 
> element. This is allegedly used to mark a part of a manuscript within 
> which there has been some damage to the carrier, e.g. by rubbing or 
> singeing or spilling marmalade, but not so much as to make the 
> transcriber unsure of what the writing actually says (if that were the 
> case, the <unclear> element should be used), nor so extensive as to make 
> the writing (or the carrier) actually disintegrate or disappear (for 
> which the <gap> element is available).
> 
> As defined, <damage> respects textual structures even less than the 
> other elements. If it is to be kept, it should probably be given a 
> sister <damageSpan> (analogous to <delSpan>) so that it can point across 
> div boundaries for example.  Though even then there isn't any really 
> satisfactory way of dealing with things like circular spots of damage in 
> the middle of the page, which have to be split up into numerous <damage> 
> elements.
> 
> But since it is really about the state of the carrier, not the text, why 
> would you want to record it anyway? I am sorely tempted to just remove 
> it and see who protests....


-- 
Dr Gabriel BODARD
(Epigrapher & Digital Classicist)

Centre for Computing in the Humanities
King's College London
Kay House
7, Arundel Street
London WC2R 3DX

Email: gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
Fax: +44 (0)20 7848 2980

http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
http://www.currentepigraphy.org/