[tei-council] Responses to Primary Sources #2 (up to the end of 11.3.5)

[Brett Barney]

Though I'm not feeling particularly merry, I'll chime in to say that I'm
with Martin on this one. The Whitman Archive encoding guidelines that we
wrote eight or nine years ago explicitly prescribe those two approaches
(<add> inside <del> to show that the whole contents of an addition were
subsequently deleted; <del> within <add> when only a part were).

BTW, this exchange seems to have started off-list, as I can't find either
of the earlier messages. That creates a bit of challenge to retracing the
conversation, at least when bits have been redacted. Probably not good for
the integrity of the listserv archive, besides, right?

Brett


|------------>
| From:      |
|------------>
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Martin Holmes <mholmes at uvic.ca>                                                                                                                   |
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| To:        |
|------------>
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Lou Burnard <lou.burnard at retired.ox.ac.uk>                                                                                                        |
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Cc:        |
|------------>
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |TEI Council <tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU>                                                                                              |
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Date:      |
|------------>
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |11/29/2011 10:08 AM                                                                                                                               |
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Subject:   |
|------------>
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Re: [tei-council] Responses to Primary Sources #2 (up to the end of	11.3.5)                                                                   |
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|







On 11-11-29 03:35 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
> On 25/11/11 20:41, Martin Holmes wrote:

>> -----------------------
>>
>> In this example from Graves:
>>
>> [quote]
>> A little earlier in the same extract, Graves writes ‘for an abridgement’
>> above the line, and then deletes it. This may be encoded similarly:
>> As for 'significant artist.' You quote the O.E.D<add hand="#RG"
>> place="above">
>>     <del>for an abridgement</del>
>> </add>in
>> explanation...
>> [/quote]
>>
>> I believe the encoding might be better if the<del>   enclosed the<add>,
>> rather than the other way round. The writer deleted the addition; he did
>> not add the deletion. Ditto for the following example with the word
>> "Norton". Note: this is exactly what is described further on in the
>> page, with regard to another example: "Note the nesting of an add
>> element within a del to record text first added, then deleted in the
>> source."
>
> Not sure that I agree with you here. The second example uses the @seq
> attribute to clarify what is otherwise ambiguous . Suppose however that
> Graves had added "x y z" and then deleted "y z". Wouldnt you encode that
> as "<add>x<del>y x</del></add>  ?
>
> The bald statement in the text "By convention, however, deletion
> precedes addition" seems to confuse the issue entirely, and I'd quite
> like to remove it. We probably need someone wiser and more experienced
> in these matters to provide us with a bit more discussion.

I'd like to ask the rest of our merry band to look at this, then. There
are more examples further down in the chapter, and I think we should try
to make them all consistent. You raise a good point about an addition
which is partially deleted; in that case, I think your formulation is
correct (add outside del) because some of the addition persists after
the deletion. But when the entire addition is deleted, I think it's more
logical to put add inside del.

I also agree that we should get rid of the "bald statement". I don't
know whose convention that is, or why it's a convention.

Cheers,
Martin
--
tei-council mailing list
tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graycol.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 105 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/pipermail/tei-council/attachments/20111201/66467a97/attachment.gif 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ecblank.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 45 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/pipermail/tei-council/attachments/20111201/66467a97/attachment-0001.gif