[tei-council] 11 - Representation of Primary Sources

[Lou's Laptop]

Brett Zamir wrote:
>
>
> *11.1 Digital Facsimiles*
>
> 1) For the line, "If one of those images actually represents an area 
> larger than the page (for example to include a binding or the surface 
> of a desk on which the page rests), then it might be enclosed by a 
> zone with coordinates smaller or *larger *than those of  the parent 
> surface."
>
> How could the zone be larger than the parent surface if the parent 
> surface, especially in such a case where the parent surface included 
> as much as the binding/surface of the desk?
>
Well, that is the point of the example. The written surface may be 
smaller than the zone; and there may be an image of the zone (rather 
than one of the surface).


> 2) The line <pb facs="#B49r"/> doesn't seem to refer to anything in 
> the sample before it, even though it is the @facs attribute which is 
> under discussion.
>
Well spotted! there should have been an xml:id on the <zone> in question 
(now added)


> *11.3.5 Substitutions*
>
> 1) I don't understand the last part of this sentence: "The numbers 
> assigned by the <att>seq</att> attribute may be used to identify the 
> order in which the various additions and deletions are believed by the 
> encoder to have been carried out, and thus provide a simple method of 
> supporting the kind of <soCalled>genetic</soCalled> textual criticism 
> typified by (for example) Hans Walter Gabler's work on the 
> reconstruction *of the <q>overlay</q> levels of *implicit in the 
> manuscripts of James Joyce's <title>Ulysses</title>."
>
Sorry, one "of" too many. now removed.


> 2) I'm also unclear as to whether the sequence of additions and 
> deletions is supposed to represent the document order of the added and 
> deleted items, or just the apparent order the author made the changes.
>
It is very definitely the latter. the document order is not significant.



> *11.3.6 Cancellation of Deletions and Other Markings*
>
> Is there a way to let "stet" show up within the <restore> if the 
> encoder wanted this word printed out or should that just be detected 
> by @type="marginalStetNote"?
>
A job for a stylesheet I think...


> *11.3.7 Text Omitted from or Supplied in the Transcription*
>
> 1) Definition of <gap> (not in the source), maybe the phrase "because 
> the material is illegible or inaudible" could be changed to read 
> "because the material is illegible, obscured, or inaudible" (for 
> signed or visual texts).
>
OK: I added "invisible".


> 2) If, per the definition (not in the source), <gap>'s @reason could 
> have the value "cancelled and illegible", this would seem to me to 
> contradict its definition as data.word which is separated by 
> whitespace per 
> http://tei.oucs.ox.ac.uk/P5/Guidelines-web/en/html/ref-gap.html .
>
Yes. It's a stupid idea anyway since if it's illegible you cannot say 
whether or not it's cancelled.

> 3) Maybe the definition for @hand (not in source) might expand 
> "identifiable hand" to "identifiable or distinct hand", since 
> "identifiable" may give the impression that the hand must be known.

Good point. I have substituted "distinct" for "identifiable"

>
> *11.4.1 Document Hands*
>
> Would there be any cases where an element with a @hand attribute from 
> att.textCritical encloses a handShift? If so, would a @new on the 
> latter override the former for the rest of the element?
Hmm. That's almost certainly something no-one has envisaged before, but 
I think your interpretation would be the correct one.

>
> *11.5.1 Damage, Illegibility, and Supplied Text*
>
> 1) For the definition of @hand (not in the source), would the line 
> beginning, "In the case of damage (deliberate defacement, etc.)" be 
> enhanced with "In the case of damage (deliberate defacement, 
> *censorship, *etc.)"?
Um, I don't think so: censorship can after all be invisible.

>
> 2) I think that the line "If it is desired to supply more information 
> about the kind of damage, it is also possible to nest an 
> <gi>unclear</gi> element within the <gi>damage</gi> element" follows 
> an example with <unclear reason="damage">" could be more clear as a 
> transition to the line previous if it were worded something like this:
>
>     It is also possible to nest an <gi>unclear</gi> element within the 
> <gi>damage</gi> element" follows an example with
>     <unclear reason="damage">, assuming it is desired to supply more 
> information about the kind of damage.
>

Not sure that I am understanding this comment. The text reads quite 
clearly to me.