[tei-council] Certainty within milestoneLike

[Gabriel BODARD]

On 31/07/2012 17:41, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
> I can imagine uncertainty over where exactly a shift in hand
> (<handShift/>) occurs or whether a pause (<pause/>) occurs at all.  So I
> treat these like the milestone elements.

I agree. Or which hand you're shifting to here, or various other 
information that might be recorded in attributes of these empty 
elements. I think this is right.

> If you use <addSpan/> instead of <add> or <delSpan/> instead of <del/>
> to get around an overlapping hierarchy problem, you could have a
> situation where, when transcribing a manuscript, you can't tell exactly
> which text was added or deleted.  So I would treat these like the
> milestone elements.

True. Or how a text is marked for deletion, or if you're recording an 
edition, various other information about the deletion or damage that is 
imperfectly recorded. Okay, I'm persuaded.

> You sometimes use <ptr/> to mark sigla, and I suppose there might be old
> printed books where it's unclear whether a smudge is a siglum or, say, a
> quotation mark.  But I'm willing to let this go until someone raises it
> as an issue.

I'm so not convinced by this, to be honest, maybe because in my usage at 
least <ptr/> never represents something that's in the source text 
itself, but is used to indicate some kind of technical relationship 
within the markup. If anyone feels strongly I'm happy to revisit this, 
though.

> The dictionaries chapter used to be named "print dictionaries" but was
> renamed in order to suppport encoding of born-digital dictionaries.  I
> strongly suspect these elements predate the renaming, and even if they
> don't, we can't really say that no one uses these in encoding print
> dictionaries.  I can imagine uncertainty about the placement of these
> elements when transcribing an old dictionary, so I vote to treat like
> the milestone elements.

Fair enough. I don't know how the dictionary elements are used, but if 
oRef and pRef can take various interpretive meaning-bearing attributes, 
then there's surely call for asserting certainty/responsibility/etc on 
these attributes as well.

According to James's comment on the ticket (and the minutes from AA), 
"unless there is great disagreement the FR should be approved and 
implemented". Does the lack of dissent over the last 4 days count as not 
great disagreement? Shall I go ahead and implement this?

And are we talking about just adding model.certLike to the model of 
these elements, or model.glossLike (which will bring certLike with it)? 
I'm a bit confused to find that <precision> is a member of the latter 
but not the former, since I thought we explicitly created it as a 
<certainty>-like element...

G


-- 
Dr Gabriel BODARD
(Research Associate in Digital Epigraphy)

Department of Digital 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/