[tei-council] Fwd: Re: Notes on chapter 11 (part one)

[Lou Burnard]

Hello chaps!

On the eurostar, I tried to apply all comments emailed by Martin, Brett, 
and Piotr during the meeting

here are my comments

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [tei-council] Notes on chapter 11 (part one)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:17:52 +0000
From: Lou Burnard <lou.burnard at retired.ox.ac.uk>
To: Martin Holmes <mholmes at uvic.ca>

On -10/01/37 20:59, Martin Holmes wrote:
> "...to identify individuals appearing in a group portraits and link them
> to data about the person represented." [Delete "a", change "person" to
> "people".]
done



> "...<surface>  defines a written surface in terms of a rectangular
> coordinate space, optionally grouping one or more graphic
> representations of that space, and rectangular zones of interest within
> it." ["rectangular" is obsolete.]

which one? Here's my revision of the desc anyway:

>>defines a written surface in terms of a rectangular
> coordinate space, optionally  grouping one or more graphic representations of
> that space, zones of interest within that space, and transcriptions of the
>   writing within them.

The coordinate space, i believe, must be rectangular.

>
> The first example showing a zone on the left side of the page doesn't
> make much sense; the graphic is provided as a child of<zone>, rather
> than<surface>, so the coordinate system provided by<surface>  is not in
> the context of anything, whereas the coordinate system provided by
> <zone>  seems only provide the width and height of the graphic. This
> example needs reworking, I think.

Possibly we need a simpler example first, since this one is of the
(slightly) unusual case where a zone is not topologically contained by
parent surface. I dont understand your comment about the width and height.


>
> The second example is much better, but it has a<desc>  on the first
> <zone>  with a description of the content, while the subsequent<zone>s
> have their descriptions in comments. There should be consistency here;
> suggest<desc>  throughout.

I agree we should be consistent, but I have perversely chosen to make
them XML comments throughout


>
> "Zones need not nest within each other; they must however be
> rectangular, as previously noted." [It's not true that they must be
> rectangular.]
>


Corrected. We need an example of a non-rectangular zone though.


> "If the transcription is regarded as a text in its own right, organized
> and structured independently of its physical realization in the document
> or documents represented by the facsimile, then the recommended practice
> is to use the<text>  element, provided as a sibling of the facsimile
> element." [This suggests that a<zone>  is linked directly to a<text>;
> what it should imply is that a<zone>  is linked to a descendant of<text>.]

revised version:

>  If the transcription is regarded as a text in its
> own right, organized and structured independently of its physical
> realization in the document or documents represented by the facsimile,
> then the recommended practice is to use the <gi>text</gi> element to
> contain such a structured representation. The <gi>text</gi> element is
> a sibling of the <gi>facsimile</gi> and <gi>sourceDoc</gi>
> elements.


> _______________________________________________


On -10/01/37 20:59, Martin Holmes wrote:
 > 11.1.1:
 >
 > "<p rend="it" facs="#B49rPara2">" [Suggest changing @rend="it" to
 > @rend="italic" for consistency with other examples elsewhere in the
 > Guidelines.]

Jusyt out of curiosity i checked to see whether the Glines are at all 
consistent in their suggested values for the rend attribute. No prizes 
for guessing the answer! For values beginning with "it", here are the 
results:

it (25
ital (2
italic (27
italics (5

I obstinately think this is not entirely a bad thing.


 >
 > "Further discussion of the encoding choices made in the above
 > transcription is provided in the remainder of this chapter." [This
 > doesn't make much sense; the remainder of the chapter goes on to show
 > genetic encoding with different examples.]
 >

True. Deleted the para


 > "@flipping    indicates whether the patch is attached and folded in 
such a
 > way as to provide two writing surfaces" [Should this be "two or more"?]

Not sure how that could work. I can't imagine a "flipping" surface with 
more than two writing surfaces. But if we replace patch with nested 
surface and introduce surfaceGrp I am not sure we want this attribute 
anyway.

 > Numbering of figures: some examples appear to be treated as figures,
 > with numbering, and some seem to be left out of the numbering scheme.
 > Suggest consistent identification and numbering of figures, including
 > all examples, since some examples need to be referred to with e.g.
 > "Figure 3".

Yes. Will check this, but I think what happens is that all the <figure>s 
are numbered but if they have no <head> then no heading
is produced.


 >
 > "Equally, the encoder may choose to provide only graphics without
 > transcription, or with a structured (non-embedded) transcription, or any
 > combination of the three." [Delete "with"?]

yes, Revused as

  Equally, the
encoder may choose to provide only graphics without any transcription,
to provide only a structured (non-embedded) transcription, or to provide
any combination of the three. </p>

 > _______________________________________________
 > tei-council mailing list
 >
On -10/01/37 20:59, Martin Holmes wrote:
 > GENERAL COMMENT:
 >
 > The whole chapter proceeds as if<sourceDoc>  did not exist, and all the
 > genetic material is to be embedded inside<facsimile>; then suddenly
 > <sourceDoc>  is used in an example without explanation. Am I missing
 > something here?

No, this is an oversight,  Working on it.

 >
 > (11.2 ff)
 >
 > "Transcriptions of this kind are closely focussed on the physical
 > appearance of specific documents, needing to distinguish the traces of
 > different writing activities on them, such as additions, and deletions
 > but also other indications of how the writing is to be read..." [Delete
 > the third comma (after "additions").]

Done

 >
 > "then, methods of describing important extra-linguistic phenomena in the
 > source: unusual spaces, lines, page and line breaks, change of
 > manuscript hand, etc." [Suggest pluralizing "changes" for better
 > parallel structure.]
 >

Done