[tei-council] AMBER for your action

[Gabriel Bodard]

Dan O'Donnell a écrit :
>> 2672530 	Remove repository element requirement in msIdentifier
> 
> Here I wonder if the problem may involve the semantics of the element 
> name which could be adjusted with some minor changes. What Hugh is 
> really concerned about is that he thinks that some material has 
> locations rather than repositories. Looking at the element description, 
> I see that repository is very manuscript centric--in fact much more than 
> our description of the applicability of the module:
> 
> Element: contains the name of a repository within which manuscripts are 
> stored, possibly forming part of an institution
> Manuscript module description: Although originally developed to meet the 
> needs of cataloguers and scholars working with medieval manuscripts in 
> the European tradition, the scheme presented here is general enough that 
> it can also be extended to other traditions and materials, and is 
> potentially useful for any kind of inscribed artefact.

The point here is not so much the definition of 'repository', but the 
fact that some text-bearing objects just aren't held by any kind of 
institution. I think repository *is* a useful concept as apart from just 
place: something that's in a museum or a library or a university or an 
auctioneer's warehouse or even a private collection should be recorded 
explicitly as such. But the repository element shouldn't be required for 
an object that is a graffito on an outside wall, a text carved into the 
face of a cliff, the pavement of a street, etc. Or an item now lost, of 
which all we know is that it was once seen "in a field outside 
Aphrodisias in the 18th century".

>> 2209933 	content model of 'am' (cf bug 2542813)
> maybe.
> 
> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2209933&group_id=106328&atid=644065
> 
> This is an old problem similar to what used to affect w: that is to say 
> if you are transcribing for meaning by indicating am, are you really 
> also transcribing for diplomatic features like unclear? What is striking 
> in each of the cases Gabriel supplies is that he in fact knows what the 
> resolution is, indicating that from the perspective of the text (rather 
> than its diplomatics) the text is not unclear.

I don't see how the fact that we "know" what the resolution is changes 
the status of the transcription of the text in this case. I can say that 
a 'G' is unclear even if I can speculate with some confidence that it 
must (from context) be a 'G'; even more obviously I can say that a 'G' 
has been deleted even if it is still perfectly visible on the page. In 
any case, I can tag a symbol as <am> even if I don't know the resolution 
of the abbreviation.

> I'm sympathetic to the processing issues, but found myself working with 
> w that there is some real reason in the current madness. Elena makes a 
> good point in her comment. If we say no here (and even if we don't), 
> perhaps we need to look at abbr?

I'm not sure I get the first part of what you're saying here, but if I 
do understand then surely the solution is for you to have a rule in your 
local encoding practice (or schema customization) not to tag 
text-transcriptional information inside <am> (or abbr, aut sim.) in 
certain contexts (or just to ignore it in processing). There are clear 
cases where we *do* need such tagging in core TEI.

Best,

G

-- 
Dr Gabriel BODARD
(Epigrapher & Digital Classicist)

Centre for Computing in the Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL
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/