[tei-council] Responses to some of Lou's queries about my comments on ch. 11 [was Re: Fwd: Re: Re: Notes on chapter 11 (part two)]

[Lou Burnard]

On 14/11/11 21:51, Brett Barney wrote:

>
> First, I have a hard time
> knowing what is meant by "or similar unit." What is similar to a page
> and a column? What characteristic(s) do pages and columns have in common
> that the unnamed other unit might be expected to share?  Is the salient
> characteristic representation by a milestone element?

Yes.


The next bit,
> about "more complex mapping" will really only make sense to those who
> have read later parts of the chapter. Since this sentence doesn't
> indicate what sort of more complex mapping one might do (for which @facs
> on <pb/> or <cb/> or similar is inadequate) it doesn't seem to me to add
> anything beyond what the previous sentence has already said better: "The
> facs attribute is used to associate any element in a transcription with
> an image of the corresponding part of the source, by means of the usual
> URI pointing mechanism."

Thanks for the clarification. Looking at the text again, I think you're 
right. So it now reads

"<p>In the simple case where a digital text is composed of page images,
the <att>facs</att> attribute on the <gi>pb</gi> element may be used
to associate each image with an appropriate point in the text:"

>
> As I said, though, I'm OK with letting the whole thing slide, esp. now
> that it seems quite likely that the problem is in my head.
>
>  > > > The coordinates of the surface (that is, the area of the image
>  > > > which represents the written two page spread)
>  > >
>  > > ---!!!!!! This is more of the problem that I was trying to call
>  > > attention to when I wrote about what seemed to me a confounding of
>  > > physical surfaces and surfaces as defined by the encoder. There *is
>  > > no* single surface in the physical object, I would argue.
>  >
>  > I am not sure what you want changed here.

I take it that your concern (and Elena's) is the careless use of the 
word "surface"  to refer both to the physical object and the model of it 
being encoded. I have had another go at rephrasing this:

"We could then define a <gi>surface</gi> element corresponding with
the area of the image which represents the written two page spread in
terms of this coordinate space, simply by counting pixels in the
image."


>  > Please suggest an improvement.
>
> Alternatively, if the transcription is intended not to prioritize
> representation of the final text so much as the process by which the
> document came to take its present form and/or the physical disposition
> of its component parts, it may be preferable to use a subset of the
> available elements and to embed them within the zone element, as further
> described in section 11.1.3 Embedded transcription below.

Fine by me.


>
> OK. Might you also revise "this page" to "a page" or "the page"? (I'm
> concerned that the discussion of the presumed antecedent, the page from
> Géometrie Pratique, is no longer the subject of discussion in what
> immediately precedes this sentence. So I suppose "the page from
> Géometrie Pratique" might work, too.)

OK. First sentence of section "Parallel transcription" now reads 
"Suppose now that we wish to align a transcription of the page discussed 
in the preceding section with particular zones."

>
>  > > > @binder describes the method by which a patch is or was connected
>  > > > to the main surface
>  > >
>  > > but a "binder" isn't a method. Instead of "method" how about one of
>  > > these:
>  > >
>  > > instrument device property apparatus
>  > >
>  >
>  > these dont seem to work for me. surely the possible values indicate that
>  > it is a method?
>
> Right. So, attacking from the other direction: "glued," "pinned," and
> "sewn" are not binders. (Glue, pins, and thread *are*.) I would be fine
> with changing the name of the attribute if that is less traumatic. @method
> already exists (with two different sets of legal values, so maybe another
> set wouldn't hurt anything?). At a glance, I don't see any of these:
> @technique, @means, @procedure.

These all seem too generic. I've renamed it to @attachment for the moment.


> OK, something like this:
>
> . . . for example that one is a consequence of the other. One might also
> wish to group together certain revisions, regardless of when they might
> have occurred, based on a variety of other shared characteristics (e.g.,
> corrections of factual errors or revisions that incorporate suggestions
> made by a given reader).


OK, tx. I changed "One" to "They" for consonance with the preceding 
sentence though.