[tei-council] genetic draft -- from Brett, pt. 3

Lou Burnard lou.burnard at retired.ox.ac.uk
Tue Aug 30 13:17:38 EDT 2011

On 25/08/11 18:39, Brett Barney wrote:

>> Within a zone, the transcription may be organized topographically in
> terms of
>> of lines of writing, using the line elemetn, or in terms of blocks of
> writing,
>> using the ab (anonymous block) element, or as a combination of the two
> Above, near the end of 1.1.2,<seg>  is offered as an alternative, also, so
> I'm
> thinking that it should be added here, too.

<seg> is not an alternative, really. Here's how the passage at 1.1.2 now 

"Where, however, the lineation is
not considered significant, large groups of tokens may be
indicated using the <gi>block</gi> element. The
<gi>seg</gi> element described in section <ptr
target="#SASE"/> may be used to indicate smaller sequences of tokens
within <gi>zone</gi>, <gi>line</gi>, or <gi>block</gi> as appropriate. "

>> although it may be an open question as to whether inter-document
> discrepancies
>> at the dossier level should be regarded in the same way as intra-document
>> alterations.
> "Dossier" surprised me here, but I see now that this sentence is reworked
> from
> the earlier draft (when it was called "An Encoding Model for Genetic
> Editions").
> In that document, the semantics of dossier was defined, but this is the
> first
> occurence of the term in the present document. Rather than suggest that the
> definition be included here, though, I'm for deleting the whole phrase "at
> the
> dossier level," since it doesn't seem to me to add anything to the
> sentence.

OK, deleted.

>> this does not necessarily imply that the word was added to the first
>> witness, nor that it was deleted from the other.
> This is currently the end of the paragraph (and, apparently, of the
> subject). But
> it doesn't settle anything. Is the observation here intended to act as a
> warning
> against using things like<del>  and<add>  for inter-document modifications,
> or is
> it intended to act as a kind of justification for the existence of multiple
> ways
> to encode the modifications? I suspect the latter (maybe because I've been
> conditioned by other sections of the Guidelines). Whichever the case, I
> think
> some sort of explicit recommendation is needed here, before we go on to
> introduce
> a set of elements.

I agree that this sentence does rather leave one hanging. But I am not 
sure what should follow it. Should we simply delete "When two.... the 

>> In this section we discuss a number of elements which may be used to
> record
>> traces of the writing process within a document.
> This works fine for the current document but not for the top of section
> 11.5
> (since the elements discussed there cover a different range of phenomena
> than
> "traces of the writing process").

I agree  we may need to split 11.5 up in some way.

>> <mod>  represents any kind of modification identified within a text at a
>> documentary level.
> Same problem as with "dossier level." Perhaps "represents any modification
> identified within a single document"?

Agreed. Much better.

>> Most, if not all, transcriptional elements imply a certain level of
> semantic
>> interpretation. For instance, using the add element to encode interlinear
>> insertions implies a decision that the interlinear text has been
> deliberately
>> inserted rather than simply written between the lines.
> This passage baffled me at first. If it's granted to be an insertion,
> what's
> interpretive about saying it was inserted? What's the distinction between
> "inserted" and "written between the lines" anyway? Comparing with the
> earlier
> version, I think I understand. To my mind the earlier version is
> (unfortunately)
> clearer: "Most of these elements imply a certain level of semantic
> interpretation; for instance the usage of the add element to encode, say,
> interlinear insertions involves a decision that the interlinear text has
> been
> deliberately inserted rather than simply misplaced." In that version, the
> contrast between intention and happenstance is easy to pick up on, though I
> see
> why "misplaced" is problematic. And the problem of begging the question (if
> I
> recall my freshman Enlish unit on logical fallacies correctly) is present
> there,
> too--it's assumed to be an "insertion" in the description. My version:
> "Most, if
> not all, transcriptional elemest involve a certain amount of semantic
> interpretation. For instance, using the add element to encode a word that
> appears
> between two lines of text involves the decision that the word was written
> after
> the the lines (rather than, say, before them)." Hmmm. Probably plenty to
> worry
> about in that, too.

Here's another attempt then:

  For instance, using the <gi>add</gi>
    element to encode a word or phrase that occupies interlinear space
    involves a decision that it has been deliberately inserted as an
    addition rather than an alternative, and indeed a judgment that it
    was written after, rather than before, the other lines.

>> Where it is felt desirable to keep the recording of ‘what is on the page’
>> entirely separate from ‘what is the editor’s interpretation’, the generic
>> mod element may be preferred. This element simply indicates any kind of
>> modification that has been identified in the document, without prejudice
>> as to its function.
> Ah, well this makes my suggestion just above really problematic, doesn't
> it? I
> honestly don't know what to suggest here, since I do think it extremely
> fishy to
> make a fuss about the part played by an editor's interpretive faculty in
> the
> determination of how a bit of text functions while ignoring it in the
> determination of when it was written.

Saying something is a <mod>  says something about its "when", but not 
about its "what". That seems quite useful to me.

More information about the tei-council mailing list