[tei-council] FW: Further update on PH

[Arianna Ciula]

Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> Conal Tuohy wrote:
>>  It seems to me that if we have no explicit surface specified, or no zone, then we should interpret this to mean that the precise location of the image or images with respect to the page is not defined, and they should be intepreted identically to graphics which had been nested inside surface and zone elements without @box attributes. Does that seem right right?
>>   
> yes, I think so. I rather like the idea of unspecified <zone> with no @box
> (or the 4 broken-apart atts which I prefer)

I think the that reasons in favor of splitting the coordinates into 
attributes seem robust enough now:
- easier to extend the schema for v1.1
- easier to process for presentation
- more conventional names (my fault for not recognizing this)

, which I could use to say "yes,
> I have pictures of two parts of the page, god knows what the exact
> zones are, but who cares they are just illustrative"
> 
> one thing which bothers me still, which Lou and I spent a while
> on today without reaching consensus, is how to document
> <zone> and <surface>. eg, how do I say
> 
>  - this zone is a closeup of the  messy changes in the margin
>  - this <graphic> is colour, this <graphic> is infrared (both are of
>    same zone and surface)
>  - this <graphic>/ <zone> was taken in 1920, this other pair
>    was taken in 1960 after the fire
>  - this picture is an oblique shot of the surface

I think we must be careful here. On one hand we need to allow for some 
sort of description (therefore <desc> or <note> on zones and surfaces 
would be useful), but at the same time we don't want to re-invent 
metadata for images.
So as we do elsewhere in the guidelines, i think we should point to 
appropriate metadata for images when the purpose goes beyond the simple 
connection image/text and brief description of the image content.

The <surrogate> element in the MS module is useful for cataloging 
purposes, but again, also there, we may want to say that there are 
appropriate standards for recording this information in a less 
'narrative' way.

Arianna

> do others recognise any of these scenarios? Lou and I imagined
> how we would do the 1920/1960 one by using standoff links to
> <bibl> records, but the others?
> 
> at the least, I'd be happier if <surface> and <zone> had
> <desc> children or the like.
> 
> Sebastian
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

-- 
Dr Arianna Ciula
Research Associate
Centre for Computing in the Humanities
King's College London
Strand
London WC2R 2LS (UK)
Tel: +44 (0)20 78481945
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/cch