[tei-council] reminder

[Gabriel BODARD]

Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> I'd say that an unambigous description using width and depth
> must specify the relationship between the view and the object
> in terms of a compass point. All other things being equal, I'd
> be assuming that the viewer is standing on the south side of the object;
> with the (common) exception being when there is obviously
> a "primary" face.

I'm pretty sure that's not the way archaeologists work, though. The 
"front" of an object is the face most commonly presented to the 
viewer/user/celebrant/dedicant/visitor (the door to a temple or tomb, 
say), but this is not necessarily the face bearing text--and certainly 
not the only face bearing text. We have at least one object inscribed on 
eight different faces.

Height, in any case, is pretty unambiguous, and doesn't depend on viewer 
position or location of text. I think we're just shooting ourselves in 
the foot by trying to define what are actually pretty well-understood 
terms: why don't we just say "the height, width, depth (etc.)" and let 
users figure out what they mean? If there is a technical definition of 
these terms in codicology, then I'm sure codicologists know that and 
don't need the TEI to define it for them...

> why not just, in your own project, limit @degree to the values
> 0.25, 0.5 and 0.75 and gloss them to 'low', 'medium', and 'high'?

Because I don't much like (and others even less so) having these 
spurious --and meaningless-- numbers in my XML in the first place. I 
know people who would flat out refuse to use them. @cert=low means the 
editor wants you to know she has less certainty than usual in the 
statement of this fact (or interpretation, or supplement). 
@precision=low means this is _circa_ 12 cm not precisely 12 cm.

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/