[tei-council] handy...

[Arianna Ciula]

Syd Bauman wrote:

> When we created @scribe of <handNote> we didn't have personography.
> Now that we do, I don't wonder if it should be a pointer to a
> <person> or <nym>. I realize that for many, many (perhaps the vast
> majority) of manuscripts the details of the scribe can never be
> known. But certainly for some of the manuscripts (e.g., those Matthew
> spoke about in Victoria a few months ago) the scribe *is* known.

I also made this point in my comments about this attribute:
I understand why the attribute @scribe for <handNote> has as value 
data.name, since most of the times we don't know much about scribes 
besides what their hand witnesses, but when we do, I think this 
attribute could be used as pointer to a person element. How could we 
allow for this second use?
The same attribute name (@scribe) has data type data.code for <hand>.

> 
>> The easiest solution (proposed, I think, by Matthew some time ago)
>> would be simply to abolish <handList> and <hand> completely, since
>> they duplicate the function of <handDesc> and <handNote>. We could
>> permit <handDesc> within <profileDesc> for those who don't want to
>> go through the business of doing a full msDesc just to document
>> some hands (though it's hard to imagine why you'd want one without
>> the other).
>>
>> If you've forgotten, the only difference between <hand> and
>> <handNote> is that the former is empty, while the latter has para
>> content. And <hand> has attributes
>>   @scribe,    @style   @ink  @first  @writing   @mainLang  @resp
>> while
>> <handNote> has attributes
>>  @scribe
>>  @script  [means same as hand at style]
>>  @medium [means same as hand at ink]
>>  @scope  [generalizes on hand at first]
>>
>> Arianna proposes making a new class, att.handWriting, to contain
>> these four, which seems useful, even if we abolish <hand>, since
>> those who want to can then extend it.
>>
>> The three attributes on <hand> but not <handNote> are probably
>> dispensable: @writing "describes other characteristics of the hand"
>> e,g, "shaky", "thick",. There seems no advantage to giving such
>> descriptive notes in an attribute.

As Syd, I would be tempted to keep it, but we need others' opinion.

@mainLang is not a property of
>> the hand. @resp could be inherited from att.editLike, if needed,
>> but it seems odd to single out identification of the hand from
>> other aspects of ms description.

I'd like to have att.editLike on the description of hands, but again, we 
need others' opinion.

I think these attributes are there
>> because <hand> is empty, so there was a need to pack a lot of extra
>> info into it. If we replaced <hand> by <handNote>, then any such
>> extra info could appear as content of the element.

I agree with Lou's proposal. We also need to think of what would @hand 
(att.transcriptional) point to if we don't allow any description of 
hands in the profileDesc.

Arianna
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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