Re: TEI-L Digest - 11 Jan 2017 to 12 Jan 2017 (#2017-10)
Kathryn Tomasek <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.tei.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CANRszA6V8q_SvhQqbSQ08pqNU3B=jtdcQzqwxkaRayze-1YdTA@mail.gmail.com> |
Hi everybody, Thanks, Martin, for pointing to the MEDEA project website. Georg Vogeler at the Centre for Information Modeling, Austrian Center for Digital Humanities, University of Graz, is working on the MEDEA ontology. You can find his work on github: https://github.com/GVogeler/bookkeeping Basically, the idea is to choose whatever markup seems best for your document--list, table, div, p--and then use @ana to add references to the bookkeeping ontology: #bk_entry #bk_amount #bk_quantity #bk_what #bk_to #bk_from #bk_credit #bk_between #bk_transfer Either Georg or I will be happy to say more. His most recent publication shows some examples, and we have an article under review for DSH, with another going in to JTEI. The latter has some examples of markup from my work on the Wheaton Family Papers. Vogeler, Georg. 2016. “The Content of Accounts and Registers in their Digital Edition. XML/TEI, Spreadsheets, and Semantic Web Technologies”, in: Edition von Rechnungen und Amtsbüchern, ed. by Jürgen Sarnowksy, V&R Unipress (available in print and e-text). Hope this is helpful. Kathryn Kathryn Tomasek Associate Professor of History Wheaton College Norton, Massachusetts @KathrynTomasek Our Wheaton College was founded as a school for the higher education of women in 1834. Our Wheaton College is committed to individual, academic, and religious freedom. On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:00 AM, TEI-L automatic digest system < [email protected]> wrote: > There are 18 messages totaling 1491 lines in this issue. > > Topics of the day: > > 1. div and p (8) > 2. Dictionaries, practical question (3) > 3. Remove from listserv > 4. <no subject> > 5. unsubscribe > 6. How to leave the list > 7. spam on the TEI list > 8. MEDEA. Modeling semantically Enriched Digital Edition of Accounts (2) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 09:28:43 -0500 > From: Paul Schaffner <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: div and p > > Just to confirm that in encoding tens of thousands of books, and > instructing editors, the p,div vs. div,p issue in TEI has been a source > of frequent frustration. Far from being rare, actual examples of > div,p are quite common in the wild. The possible strategies (some > of which in some cases amounted to kludges) were, as I instructed > the editors, basically four: > > 1. wrap the concluding bits in a semi-artificial div, without heading, > e.g. div type="conclusion" or type="envoi" etc. > > <div type="chapter"> > <p> > <p> > <div type="section"><head>...</> > <div type="section"><head>...</> > <div type="conclusion"><p/><p/>...</> > </div> > > > 2. wrap the bulk of the containing div -- the divved chunk in the > middle -- in a floatingText element and leave the paragraphs before > and after it as loose p elements > > <div type="chapter> > <p> > <p> > <floatingText type="body_of_chapter"> > <body> > <div type="section"><head>...</> > <div type="section"><head>...</> > </body> > </floatingText> > <p> > <p> > </div> > > (In some cases you can substitute one of the other > almost-floating-text elements such as list, table, > q, quote, or figure) > > 3. squeeze the concluding bits of the div into one of the > more generous div-liminal tags, e.g. argument, closer, > or (our local custom element) tailnote. > > <div type="chapter"> > <p> > <p> > <div type="section"><head>...</> > <div type="section"><head>...</> > <argument> > <p> > <p> > </argument> > </div> > > 4. Put the concluding paragraphs into a sibling div and > type it appropriately > > <div type="chapter"> > <p> > <p> > <div type="section"><head>...</> > <div type="section"><head>...</> > </div> > <div type="chapter_appendix"> > <p> > <p> > </div> > > > pfs > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017, at 19:32, Marjorie Burghart wrote: > > Thanks, it is indeed a very clear answer to my question. > > > > I am a little confused, though, by the idea that, within section 4, > > section 4.1 may be preceded by some loose paragraphs not belonging to it, > > while section 4.3 could not be followed by the same loose paragraph(s). > > In my understanding, it's a fairly common practice: the paragraphs at the > > beginning serve as a sort of introduction or captatio benevolentiae for > > the whole of section 4, and the final paragraphs at the end serve as a > > sort of conclusion to the entire section 4, and what we would call in > > French a "transition" to section 5. > > > > I'm assuming that you are going to object that, if the last paragraph of > > section 4 is a conclusion I should just wrap it in a <div > > xml:id="conclusion_4">. Fair enough, but then, why am I forced to do that > > for the conclusion, while I have the choice to leave the introduction as > > a loose paragraph? > > > > I'll add that I am annoyed by this rule because I'm currently writing > > several chapters using the jTEI schema (requirement from the editor), and > > in this schema a <div> MUST have a <head>. Normally, I would wrap my > > final, conclusive/transitive paragraph in a <div> (just because of the > > rule described above) and I wouldn't think about it anymore, but I REALLY > > do not want my little paragraph to have a title - that would be against > > all conventions of Western typography. > > > > Best regards, > > Marjorie > > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > > De: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <[email protected]> > > À: "Marjorie Burghart" <[email protected]> > > Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <[email protected]>, > > [email protected] > > Envoyé: Jeudi 12 Janvier 2017 01:13:06 > > Objet: Re: div and p > > > > > > > On Jan 11, 2017, at 5:01 PM, Marjorie Burghart < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > I was wondering: is there a sensible reason why a <p> may occur before > a series of <div>s, but not after? I can't make sense of this rule. > > > > When P1 was developed, our understanding of conventional textual > > structure > > was (and in my case remains) that one can and frequently does have, in a > > book with chapters, sections, and subsections, some paragraphs of text in > > chapter 4 before the beginning of section 4.1, and likewise one may have > > some paragraphs in 4.1 before subsection 4.1.1. But in conventional > > Western > > typography I do not believe I have ever seen a book in which section 4.3 > > (say) > > ended, was not followed by a section 4.4, but WAS followed by some > > paragraphs > > belonging to chapter 4. An explicit or other closing, maybe. But not > > paragraphs > > of normal text. > > > > One reason for this is the straightforward one that in conventional > > Western > > typography the ending of any section is typically signaled only by the > > beginning of the next section of equal or higher rank — so if you did > > want to > > have the structure described above, your book designer might be hard put > > to > > it to figure out how to get the idea across. (This assumes that you were > > able > > to get the idea across to the book designer in the first place.) > > > > Dominic Dunlop of the British National Corpus once presented me with what > > he > > argued was an example of the structure which I claimed then (and still > > claim now) > > never to have seen. But his example was also interpretable as a labeled > > list > > in which each item had a label and a few paragraphs. There was text > > after > > the last labeled item which was neither a further labeled item nor part > > of the last > > labeled item. But the default TEI document grammar didn’t forbid > > paragraphs > > after lists. > > > > If one is using divs for units other than conventional chapter / section > > / subsection > > style parts of a text, the logic just given may be less compelling. > > Which makes > > me curious: what are you thinking of doing with divs that leads you to > > want > > paragraphs after the last subordinate div? (Would ab do the trick?) > > > > I will leave to your judgement whether the reasons that moved us count as > > sensible, but hope either way to have answered your question. > > > > > > > > ******************************************** > > C. M. Sperberg-McQueen > > Black Mesa Technologies LLC > > [email protected] > > http://www.blackmesatech.com > > ******************************************** > -- > Paul Schaffner Digital Library Production Service > [email protected] | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/ > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 15:31:49 +0000 > From: Mörth, Karlheinz <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Dictionaries, practical question > > Hi Paul, > > There is an incomplete but helpful list on Wikipedia: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary_writing_system > > Are you aware of the following very interesting document? It was created > as part of the ENEL (European Network of e-Lexicography) Cost Action by > very experienced experts in the field (Abel, Krek, Tiberius): Bibliography > –Dictionary Writing Systems (DWS) & related software > http://www.elexicography.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ > Bibliography_DWS_CQS_v7_web.pdf > > The Viennese Lexicographic Editor (VLE) is a Windows standalone > application which we have been developing for quite some time now. Several > smaller dictionaries were done with it. The most recent one is: > https://basex-dev.eos.arz.oeaw.ac.at/dict_api/tunico/tunis_dict__v002.html > (prod. server; link will change) > > Others you can find on the Vienna-Corpus-of-Arabic-Varieties (VICAV) > website: > https://vicav.acdh.oeaw.ac.at > > VLE is a general-purpose XML editor enhanced by functionalities typically > needed in editing lexical data. We have compiled all our dictionaries in > TEI. If you want to see details of the encoding, have a look here: > https://clarin.oeaw.ac.at/lrp/dict-gate/docs.html > > VLE makes use of various XML technologies, e.g. XSLT, XPath, XQuery. It > has a number of useful features which were needed in our projects > (validation against XML Schema, visualisation through customizable XSLT in > all parts of the system, sound recording etc). Recent versions are tightly > integrated with the BaseX database which makes it easy to set up local > instances. We also have implemented versioning. It comes with a tokenEditor > that allows to furnish corpora with dictionary IDs. Recently we have been > working on an Application Creator module which helps to create web > applications by means of a very simple wizard. > > Due to time pressure, VLE is still scarcely documented although we have > been working on this. It is freely available. If you want to try it, get in > touch. I am happy to help. VLE is an ongoing project. > > All the best > > Charly > ________________________________________________ > Karlheinz Moerth > Austrian Centre for Digital Humanities > Austrian Academy of Sciences > Sonnenfelsgasse 19/2nd floor > 1010 Wien > Tel: +43 1 51581-2220 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Piotr Banski > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 11:22 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Dictionaries, practical question > > I have worked with FLEx and FLEx-generated XML, first preparing a large > corpus-derived dictionary for FLEx ingestion and then iterating on that. > It can be done with only a minor headache as you learn the underlying > format and then e.g. discover the differences between particular versions. > > I don't really see an ontological platform for comparing FLEx vs. TEI. > FLEx is a 'machine`, TEI is a metaformat. I'd take FLEx for > lexicographic work and then worry about potential export to TEI (or > rather transformation from FLEx export). Or even attempt to go both > ways, if the initial data are in TEI, but then, maintaining references > could be a challenge. > > I have planned to check out the Viennese Lexicographic Editor[1], and > even managed to run it under Linux, but got stuck afterwards. It is > definitely worth trying for some lexicographic tasks, especially when > it's gotten more documentation. > > [1] http://www.oeaw.ac.at/acdh/de/vle > > Good luck, > > Piotr > > > On 01/11/2017 10:55 PM, Patrick Sahle wrote: > > > > I had a similar discussion only today: a colleague wants to create from > > a 18th century manuscript a multi language lexicon using FieldWorks/FLEx > > (http://fieldworks.sil.org/). I tried to convince him on the advantages > > using TEI would have but didn't get through. I see his arguments for an > > easy to use tool that is established in his field. But I am concerned > > about the loss of information about the material, visual and structural > > aspects of the documents. We are now discussing into two directions: > > - would it be possible to convert from FLEx to (sufficiently information > > rich) TEI in the end? Mainly for interoperability reasons ... > > - would it be wise to go from TEI to FLEx (keeping more information from > > the documents, but working without an easy editing tool)? > > > > Any experiences on this around? > > > > Best, Patrick > > > > Am 11.01.2017 um 16:37 schrieb Paul Schaffner: > >> Hi all, this is not strictly TEI, as you'll see, but I suspect there are > >> a number of lexicographers here. I was asked yesterday by someone > >> compiling a Latin dictionary if there was a standard (perhaps > >> database-type) piece of application software in which to compile, edit, > >> and search it. He is (sigh) using Microsoft Word at the moment, and has > >> rejected the usual filemaker-type databases as not sufficiently > >> supportive of word-processor-type formatting (multiple languages and > >> fonts, etc.) I of course pointed out that the chief desideratum for > >> future functionality was to distinguish unambiguously between different > >> structurally distinct pieces of each entry; that XML was a good vehicle > >> for recording the sort of mixture of fielded, normalized and free-form > >> text typical of dictionaries; that XML could be entered, searched, and > >> edited in any number of applications, from Access forms to simple text > >> editors; and that TEI did have a functional dictionaries module which > >> was worth considering. I am investigating further as to what he actually > >> hopes to do with the data, which makes a big difference. > >> > >> But in the meantime: is there in fact a popular software choice amongst > >> working lexicographers? (To the extent that anything used by > >> lexicographers could be called 'popular'!) > >> > >> pfs > >> > > > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Apl. Prof. Dr. Patrick Sahle > > Koordinierungsstelle Digital Humanities der Nordrhein-Westfälischen > > Akademie der Wissenschaften > > Cologne Center for eHumanities (CCeH) <http://www.cceh.uni-koeln.de/> > > Data Center for the Humanities <http://www.dch.uni-koeln.de/> > > DiXiT ITN <http://www.dixit.uni-koeln.de/> > > Institut für Dokumentologie und Editorik <http://www.i-d-e.de> > > > > Postanschrift: Cologne Center for eHumanities (CCeH), Universität zu > > Köln, Albertus-Magnus-Platz, D-50923 Köln > > Büro: Meister-Ekkehart-Str. 11, Raum 2.04; Telefon: +49 - (0)221 - 470 > 3894 > > -- > Piotr Bański, Ph.D. > Senior Researcher, > Institut für Deutsche Sprache, > R5 6-13 > 68-161 Mannheim, Germany > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 08:33:00 -0700 > From: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: div and p > > > On Jan 12, 2017, at 7:28 AM, Paul Schaffner <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Just to confirm that in encoding tens of thousands of books, and > > instructing editors, the p,div vs. div,p issue in TEI has been a source > > of frequent frustration. Far from being rare, actual examples of > > div,p are quite common in the wild. > > Since we didn’t examine every book printed on Western presses > since 1470, it would not be surprising if there were counter-examples > we had missed. Since however we did look, I’m a little surprised > to hear you say counter-examples are not just existent but “quite > common”. > > Can you point to any examples? Can you give frequency numbers? > Of a thousand books, do 400 have material that should go in > paragraph-level chunks after sub-divisions? What does “quite > common” mean, quantitatively? > > And … what are the typographic signals that indicate that the > paragraphs in question are part of the higher-level division but > not part of the immediately preceding subdivision, and not part > of a new subdivision of its own? > > > ******************************************** > C. M. Sperberg-McQueen > Black Mesa Technologies LLC > [email protected] > http://www.blackmesatech.com > ******************************************** > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:41:41 +0100 > From: Christian Grün <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Dictionaries, practical question > > VLE (dictionary writing system), »recent versions are tightly > integrated with the BaseX«… > ____________________________________ > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Mörth, Karlheinz > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > > > There is an incomplete but helpful list on Wikipedia: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary_writing_system > > > > Are you aware of the following very interesting document? It was created > as part of the ENEL (European Network of e-Lexicography) Cost Action by > very experienced experts in the field (Abel, Krek, Tiberius): Bibliography > –Dictionary Writing Systems (DWS) & related software > > http://www.elexicography.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ > Bibliography_DWS_CQS_v7_web.pdf > > > > The Viennese Lexicographic Editor (VLE) is a Windows standalone > application which we have been developing for quite some time now. Several > smaller dictionaries were done with it. The most recent one is: > > https://basex-dev.eos.arz.oeaw.ac.at/dict_api/tunico/ > tunis_dict__v002.html (prod. server; link will change) > > > > Others you can find on the Vienna-Corpus-of-Arabic-Varieties (VICAV) > website: > > https://vicav.acdh.oeaw.ac.at > > > > VLE is a general-purpose XML editor enhanced by functionalities > typically needed in editing lexical data. We have compiled all our > dictionaries in TEI. If you want to see details of the encoding, have a > look here: > > https://clarin.oeaw.ac.at/lrp/dict-gate/docs.html > > > > VLE makes use of various XML technologies, e.g. XSLT, XPath, XQuery. It > has a number of useful features which were needed in our projects > (validation against XML Schema, visualisation through customizable XSLT in > all parts of the system, sound recording etc). Recent versions are tightly > integrated with the BaseX database which makes it easy to set up local > instances. We also have implemented versioning. It comes with a tokenEditor > that allows to furnish corpora with dictionary IDs. Recently we have been > working on an Application Creator module which helps to create web > applications by means of a very simple wizard. > > > > Due to time pressure, VLE is still scarcely documented although we have > been working on this. It is freely available. If you want to try it, get in > touch. I am happy to help. VLE is an ongoing project. > > > > All the best > > > > Charly > > ________________________________________________ > > Karlheinz Moerth > > Austrian Centre for Digital Humanities > > Austrian Academy of Sciences > > Sonnenfelsgasse 19/2nd floor > > 1010 Wien > > Tel: +43 1 51581-2220 > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Piotr Banski > > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 11:22 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Dictionaries, practical question > > > > I have worked with FLEx and FLEx-generated XML, first preparing a large > > corpus-derived dictionary for FLEx ingestion and then iterating on that. > > It can be done with only a minor headache as you learn the underlying > > format and then e.g. discover the differences between particular > versions. > > > > I don't really see an ontological platform for comparing FLEx vs. TEI. > > FLEx is a 'machine`, TEI is a metaformat. I'd take FLEx for > > lexicographic work and then worry about potential export to TEI (or > > rather transformation from FLEx export). Or even attempt to go both > > ways, if the initial data are in TEI, but then, maintaining references > > could be a challenge. > > > > I have planned to check out the Viennese Lexicographic Editor[1], and > > even managed to run it under Linux, but got stuck afterwards. It is > > definitely worth trying for some lexicographic tasks, especially when > > it's gotten more documentation. > > > > [1] http://www.oeaw.ac.at/acdh/de/vle > > > > Good luck, > > > > Piotr > > > > > > On 01/11/2017 10:55 PM, Patrick Sahle wrote: > >> > >> I had a similar discussion only today: a colleague wants to create from > >> a 18th century manuscript a multi language lexicon using FieldWorks/FLEx > >> (http://fieldworks.sil.org/). I tried to convince him on the advantages > >> using TEI would have but didn't get through. I see his arguments for an > >> easy to use tool that is established in his field. But I am concerned > >> about the loss of information about the material, visual and structural > >> aspects of the documents. We are now discussing into two directions: > >> - would it be possible to convert from FLEx to (sufficiently information > >> rich) TEI in the end? Mainly for interoperability reasons ... > >> - would it be wise to go from TEI to FLEx (keeping more information from > >> the documents, but working without an easy editing tool)? > >> > >> Any experiences on this around? > >> > >> Best, Patrick > >> > >> Am 11.01.2017 um 16:37 schrieb Paul Schaffner: > >>> Hi all, this is not strictly TEI, as you'll see, but I suspect there > are > >>> a number of lexicographers here. I was asked yesterday by someone > >>> compiling a Latin dictionary if there was a standard (perhaps > >>> database-type) piece of application software in which to compile, edit, > >>> and search it. He is (sigh) using Microsoft Word at the moment, and has > >>> rejected the usual filemaker-type databases as not sufficiently > >>> supportive of word-processor-type formatting (multiple languages and > >>> fonts, etc.) I of course pointed out that the chief desideratum for > >>> future functionality was to distinguish unambiguously between different > >>> structurally distinct pieces of each entry; that XML was a good vehicle > >>> for recording the sort of mixture of fielded, normalized and free-form > >>> text typical of dictionaries; that XML could be entered, searched, and > >>> edited in any number of applications, from Access forms to simple text > >>> editors; and that TEI did have a functional dictionaries module which > >>> was worth considering. I am investigating further as to what he > actually > >>> hopes to do with the data, which makes a big difference. > >>> > >>> But in the meantime: is there in fact a popular software choice amongst > >>> working lexicographers? (To the extent that anything used by > >>> lexicographers could be called 'popular'!) > >>> > >>> pfs > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------ > >> Apl. Prof. Dr. Patrick Sahle > >> Koordinierungsstelle Digital Humanities der Nordrhein-Westfälischen > >> Akademie der Wissenschaften > >> Cologne Center for eHumanities (CCeH) <http://www.cceh.uni-koeln.de/> > >> Data Center for the Humanities <http://www.dch.uni-koeln.de/> > >> DiXiT ITN <http://www.dixit.uni-koeln.de/> > >> Institut für Dokumentologie und Editorik <http://www.i-d-e.de> > >> > >> Postanschrift: Cologne Center for eHumanities (CCeH), Universität zu > >> Köln, Albertus-Magnus-Platz, D-50923 Köln > >> Büro: Meister-Ekkehart-Str. 11, Raum 2.04; Telefon: +49 - (0)221 - 470 > 3894 > > > > -- > > Piotr Bański, Ph.D. > > Senior Researcher, > > Institut für Deutsche Sprache, > > R5 6-13 > > 68-161 Mannheim, Germany > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 15:45:43 +0000 > From: James Cummings <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: div and p > > On 12/01/17 15:33, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote: > > And … what are the typographic signals that indicate that the > > paragraphs in question are part of the higher-level division but > > not part of the immediately preceding subdivision, and not part > > of a new subdivision of its own? > > I tend to agree with you in this recurrent discussion. None of > the examples I've seen convince me that they are not additional > sub-divisions (perhaps without a head) or part of a new division > (also maybe without a head). In Lou's Canterbury tale-esque > example I would say that a that the prologue and comments after > are both separate sub-divisions (as is the body of the tale) to a > division consisting of 3 child divs. > > In Marjorie's case I think the problem is not that her extra > concluding paragraph isn't a new division or some section, but > that she doesn't want it signalled with a heading. With Paul's > examples I would choose solution 1 or 4 depending on whether I > thought they were a concluding subdivision (sans heading) or a > separate section (sans heading). > > There are plenty of texts that one might break into sections and > divisions not because of typographical aspects of the text, but > the content of it. I don't necessarily see a direct relationship > between an intellectual division and the format of how something > originally appeared on a bit of scrapped animal skin or the side > of a pot. > > -James > > -- > Dr James Cummings, Academic IT Services, University of Oxford, > TEI Consultations: [email protected] > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:49:26 +0100 > From: "Janusz S. Bien" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Dictionaries, practical question > > Quote/Cytat - "Mörth, Karlheinz" <[email protected]> (Thu 12 > Jan 2017 04:31:49 PM CET): > > > Hi Paul, > > > > There is an incomplete but helpful list on Wikipedia: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary_writing_system > > > > Are you aware of the following very interesting document? It was > > created as part of the ENEL (European Network of e-Lexicography) > > Cost Action by very experienced experts in the field (Abel, Krek, > > Tiberius): Bibliography –Dictionary Writing Systems (DWS) & related > > software > > http://www.elexicography.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ > Bibliography_DWS_CQS_v7_web.pdf > > I was not aware despite the fact that I'm a member of ENEL WG 2. > > Listing on the same level Emacs and e.g. TLex is definitely very > interesting :-) > > Best regards > > Janusz > > -- > Prof. dr hab. Janusz S. Bień - Uniwersytet Warszawski (Katedra > Lingwistyki Formalnej) > Prof. Janusz S. Bień - University of Warsaw (Formal Linguistics Department) > [email protected], [email protected], http://fleksem.klf.uw.edu.pl/~ > jsbien/ > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:08:15 -0500 > From: Mark Sgambettera <[email protected]> > Subject: Remove from listserv > > Please remove my email address from the listserv. > > Thank you, > > Mark Sgambettera > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:08:53 +0000 > From: Philippine Waisvisz <[email protected]> > Subject: <no subject> > > unsubscribe > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:19:50 +0000 > From: Philippine Waisvisz <[email protected]> > Subject: unsubscribe > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:29:46 -0500 > From: Hugh Cayless <[email protected]> > Subject: How to leave the list > > Since we've had a recent spate of these messages (which don't remove you > unless the list owner happens to see them). Try visiting > https://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=tei-l&A=1 instead > and > do what you need to there. > > All the best, > Hugh > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:33:55 -0500 > From: "Mylonas, Elli" <[email protected]> > Subject: spam on the TEI list > > Dear list members: > > The TEI list administrators do their best in the face of increased spam > requests to keep spammers off the list. Occasionally, we fail, and in that > case we remove the spammer as quickly as possible. I see that some of you > are trying to unsubscribe, possibly because of the three spam messages that > were recently sent out. We have removed the spammer and will increase our > vigilance. > > If you really don't want to receive TEI list messages any more, you can > send an email to > [email protected] <[email protected]> > > with the no subject line and the message body > > unsubscribe TEI-L > > with apologies, Elli Mylonas and Syd Bauman > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 08:43:31 -0800 > From: Martin Holmes <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: div and p > > On 2017-01-12 07:45 AM, James Cummings wrote: > > > In Marjorie's case I think the problem is not that her extra concluding > > paragraph isn't a new division or some section, but that she doesn't > > want it signalled with a heading. With Paul's examples I would choose > > solution 1 or 4 depending on whether I thought they were a concluding > > subdivision (sans heading) or a separate section (sans heading). > > This is a requirement imposed by this Schematron rule in the jTEI schema: > > <constraintSpec ident="jtei.sch-div-head" scheme="isoschematron"> > <constraint> > <sch:rule context="tei:div[not(@type = > ('editorialIntroduction', 'bibliography', 'abstract', > 'acknowledgements'))]"> > <sch:assert test="tei:head"> > A <sch:name/> must contain a head. > </sch:assert> > </sch:rule> > </constraint> > </constraintSpec> > > As you can see, we require a head element for any div which doesn't fall > into a number of specific categories. Those types of div perform > specific roles in the article structure. Our assumption when creating > the schema was that the body of an academic article would conform to the > relatively conventional structure that Michael outlined, and all the > articles so far have, but there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to > change it. There are implications for processing into ODT and PDF, as > well as ingestion into the revues.org system. > > Marjorie, could you raise a ticket for this on GitHub: > > <https://github.com/TEIC/TEI/issues> > > with [jTEI] in the title, and if possible provide us with a simple > outline of the structure you need? > > Since it'll take time to add the required support to the processing > pathways, is there a way you can get around this temporarily that won't > be too annoying? > > Cheers, > Martin > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 18:18:35 +0100 > From: Marjorie Burghart <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: div and p > > Hello! > > How common: off the top of my head, I would say that it is the norm (and > not an oddity) at least for historical essays (for what I know - it might > be quite common in other genres). This is part of the "art of writing" I > have been taught as a French historian: at the end of a chapter, you must > offer a short abstract of the topics and conclusions of the current > chapter, and offer a "transition" from those topics to topic of the next > chapter. My PhD certainly follows this rule, as did my supervisor's > dissertation. The typographic conventions may vary: a bit more space before > the conclusive paragraph, a separation sign (in my PhD I chose to have > asterisks in the shape of a triangle, I don't know if this sign has a > name?), or sometimes nothing particular. > > @James: of course I could find workarounds, but what I find irksome is > that I have to... > > @Martin: I don't suggest to change the jTEI format, I'm currently using it > to write book chapters, which may explain why I'm running into this issue. > The jTEI rules are not the source of the problem, they just make it more > evident. > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <[email protected]> > À: [email protected] > Envoyé: Jeudi 12 Janvier 2017 16:33:00 > Objet: Re: div and p > > > On Jan 12, 2017, at 7:28 AM, Paul Schaffner <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Just to confirm that in encoding tens of thousands of books, and > > instructing editors, the p,div vs. div,p issue in TEI has been a source > > of frequent frustration. Far from being rare, actual examples of > > div,p are quite common in the wild. > > Since we didn’t examine every book printed on Western presses > since 1470, it would not be surprising if there were counter-examples > we had missed. Since however we did look, I’m a little surprised > to hear you say counter-examples are not just existent but “quite > common”. > > Can you point to any examples? Can you give frequency numbers? > Of a thousand books, do 400 have material that should go in > paragraph-level chunks after sub-divisions? What does “quite > common” mean, quantitatively? > > And … what are the typographic signals that indicate that the > paragraphs in question are part of the higher-level division but > not part of the immediately preceding subdivision, and not part > of a new subdivision of its own? > > > ******************************************** > C. M. Sperberg-McQueen > Black Mesa Technologies LLC > [email protected] > http://www.blackmesatech.com > ******************************************** > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 18:26:26 +0100 > From: Piotr Bański <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: div and p > > Hi James and all, > > Been watching this conversation as a more-or-less outsider to the topic, > but now I can't help but wonder: are you guys talking about some > universal property of text, which, one would think, is a creation of the > amazing human mind, capable of calculating the changing distance between > stars and counting angels spinning on the tip of a boson, and, at the > same time -- you seem to be saying -- incapable of conceiving a textual > structure where a few well-rounded sections are bracketed with several > paragraphs on both ends? Old Plato sends you his love, I'm sure, but > we've been through postmodernism and are out of his cave by now... ;-) > > Legacy is legacy, and a glorified kludge is still a kludge, so let's not > pretend 80/20 % is 100/0... 80/20 is often enough of a reason to shut > one's eyes and swallow the pill, for the good of the system. > > (And if 80/20 is not enough of a reason, then shrug and edit the ODD... > Seriously: at this point, the ODD becomes an interpretive manifesto, > potentially much stronger and far-reaching than a single e-mail thread.) > > I recall the momentary feeling of terror that I experienced at the most > recent TEI-MM when someone in all seriousness mentioned OHCO as an axiom > of their current theorising (it was almost as strong as my dismay two > years ago in Lyon, when I heard someone citing a 30-year-old example of > overlapping <s> and <q> as a new discovery -- but I digress). Without > the old observations and the simple(r) theories/models formulated years > ago, we wouldn't be now where we are -- because simplification + > iterative tinkering is the right strategy to deal with complexity -- but > why claim that there is anything universal about them. I'm not arguing > that the content model of div should necessarily get loosened, but let's > recognize it for what it is, an 80/20 strategy, which in this case is > possibly also roughly 90 % intellectual and 10 % pragmatic, and it's > good that Paul teaches and discusses kludges, that's the pragmatic way > to deal with the issue. > > Best regards, > > Piotr > > > > On 01/12/2017 04:45 PM, James Cummings wrote: > > On 12/01/17 15:33, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote: > >> And … what are the typographic signals that indicate that the > >> paragraphs in question are part of the higher-level division but > >> not part of the immediately preceding subdivision, and not part > >> of a new subdivision of its own? > > > > I tend to agree with you in this recurrent discussion. None of the > > examples I've seen convince me that they are not additional > > sub-divisions (perhaps without a head) or part of a new division (also > > maybe without a head). In Lou's Canterbury tale-esque example I would > > say that a that the prologue and comments after are both separate > > sub-divisions (as is the body of the tale) to a division consisting of 3 > > child divs. > > > > In Marjorie's case I think the problem is not that her extra concluding > > paragraph isn't a new division or some section, but that she doesn't > > want it signalled with a heading. With Paul's examples I would choose > > solution 1 or 4 depending on whether I thought they were a concluding > > subdivision (sans heading) or a separate section (sans heading). > > > > There are plenty of texts that one might break into sections and > > divisions not because of typographical aspects of the text, but the > > content of it. I don't necessarily see a direct relationship between an > > intellectual division and the format of how something originally > > appeared on a bit of scrapped animal skin or the side of a pot. > > > > -James > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 10:05:40 -0800 > From: Martin Holmes <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: div and p > > > @Martin: I don't suggest to change the jTEI format, I'm currently > > using it to write book chapters, which may explain why I'm running > > into this issue. The jTEI rules are not the source of the problem, > > they just make it more evident. > > It worries me a bit that the jTEI schema makes what is already awkward > (the need to wrap trailing <p>s in an anonymous <div>) actually > impossible (because it insists on a <head>), now that we know that for > French historians, and presumably many other disciplines, are trained to > structure documents in exactly this way. > > I'm glad you're using jTEI, though, and the more it's used (not just for > the journal), the better it will get if we respond to these things. > > Cheers, > Martin > > On 2017-01-12 09:18 AM, Marjorie Burghart wrote: > > Hello! > > > > How common: off the top of my head, I would say that it is the norm > > (and not an oddity) at least for historical essays (for what I know - > > it might be quite common in other genres). This is part of the "art > > of writing" I have been taught as a French historian: at the end of a > > chapter, you must offer a short abstract of the topics and > > conclusions of the current chapter, and offer a "transition" from > > those topics to topic of the next chapter. My PhD certainly follows > > this rule, as did my supervisor's dissertation. The typographic > > conventions may vary: a bit more space before the conclusive > > paragraph, a separation sign (in my PhD I chose to have asterisks in > > the shape of a triangle, I don't know if this sign has a name?), or > > sometimes nothing particular. > > > > @James: of course I could find workarounds, but what I find irksome > > is that I have to... > > > > @Martin: I don't suggest to change the jTEI format, I'm currently > > using it to write book chapters, which may explain why I'm running > > into this issue. The jTEI rules are not the source of the problem, > > they just make it more evident. > > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- De: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" > > <[email protected]> À: [email protected] Envoyé: Jeudi > > 12 Janvier 2017 16:33:00 Objet: Re: div and p > > > >> On Jan 12, 2017, at 7:28 AM, Paul Schaffner > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Just to confirm that in encoding tens of thousands of books, and > >> instructing editors, the p,div vs. div,p issue in TEI has been a > >> source of frequent frustration. Far from being rare, actual > >> examples of div,p are quite common in the wild. > > > > Since we didn’t examine every book printed on Western presses since > > 1470, it would not be surprising if there were counter-examples we > > had missed. Since however we did look, I’m a little surprised to > > hear you say counter-examples are not just existent but “quite > > common”. > > > > Can you point to any examples? Can you give frequency numbers? Of a > > thousand books, do 400 have material that should go in > > paragraph-level chunks after sub-divisions? What does “quite common” > > mean, quantitatively? > > > > And … what are the typographic signals that indicate that the > > paragraphs in question are part of the higher-level division but not > > part of the immediately preceding subdivision, and not part of a new > > subdivision of its own? > > > > > > ******************************************** C. M. Sperberg-McQueen > > Black Mesa Technologies LLC [email protected] > > http://www.blackmesatech.com > > ******************************************** > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 14:05:47 -0500 > From: Paul Schaffner <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: div and p > > How common? At a guess? Maybe between 1 and 3% have > some sort of div,p problem. > > Typographic signals? Frequently none, depends on the > nature of the book and of the div. > > Strategies? I should add a fifth one: demoting the > subordinate divs to something less than divs, e.g. > numbered or labeled paragraphs, or list items. And > a sixth: breaking the superordinate div into three > divs, "stuff before the analytical bit," "the > analytical bit," and "stuff after the analytical bit." > > Examples? They're hard to search for, once successfully > subsumed by one or more of my four (now six) strategies. > The commonest fall into a few categories. E.g.: > > In both argumentative / polemical / hortatory > and narrative books, chapters are often subdivided, > but the last subdivision often strays off-topic, > or moves almost invisibly into a general conclusion, > without the latter being typographically marked. > > <div><head>The problems with regicide</head> > <div><head>1. It's illegal</head> > <p/> > <p/> > <p/> > </div> > <div><head>2. It's unscriptural</head> > <p/> > <p/> > </div> > <div<head>3. It's imprudent</head> > <p/> > <p/> > <p/> > --> [</div>] <----- > <p>All in all, regicide is a bad idea, in fact > it's one of the worst ideas. I had a dream the > other night about bad ideas, let me tell you: > self-driving cars. flavored water. uncomforable > seats. There are a lot of bad ideas around. > But regicide is the worst.</p> > </div> > > This final bit can also turn into a prayer, or > a peroration, or an apology, or something that > has no obvious category -- except that it does > not belong to the last subdiv in the chapter. > > A second variety is typical of documentary anthologies, > e.g. "The letter of Col. Smith from Ireland, together > with the King's proclamation and Parliament's reply" > In one or more of these announced documents, or between > them, or after the last one, the editor might well > suddenly start talking, narrating, or opining, without > much of a clear break from the document. Most of > these, but not all, are dealt with by my 'raisins > in oatmeal' floating text strategy, albeit often with > the dish composed of 90% raisins and only 5% devoted to > the oatmeal matrix. > > <div type="collection"> > <div type="letter">...</div> > <div type="proclamation">...</div> > <div type="reply">...</div> > <p>And after this the matter was far from settled...</p> > </div> > > A third variety might be called the central-focused > div, in which the first few paragraphs introduce > an issue, followed by a headed subdiv, often formatted > differently, that addresses it in detail, before > yielding again to an undivved set of paragraphs. > > <div><head>Baptists and Presbyterians</head> > <p>Let me tell you about B and P.</p> > <p>They may pretend to be different but they're both > the devil's spawn.</p> > <p>In fact, as soon as you compare their doctrines, > they turn out to be virtually indistinguishable.</p> > <div type="comparison"> > <head>P and B Compared</head> > <div type="doctrine"> > <head>Salvation</head> > <div> > <head>The P doctrine</head> > </div> > <div> > <head>The B doctrine</head> > </div> > </div> > <div type="doctrine"> > <head>Sacrament</head> > <div> > <head>The P doctrine</head> > </div> > <div> > <head>The B doctrine</head> > </div> > </div> > </div> > <p>So you see, they're not so different after all, > and once you compare them both to True Catholic > Doctrine, both are clearly faces of the same Heresy.</p> > <p>So I suggest burning them all, don't you agree?</p> > </div> > > Here's an actual example of the first type, more or > less (apologies for the upper-cased SGML element names...): > > Source: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A26917.0001.001?view=toc > > <DIV1> > <HEAD>XX. DIRECTIONS FOR CONFIRMATION In a state of Grace.</HEAD> > <DIV2 N="1" TYPE="direction"> > <HEAD>DIRECT. I. Be sure that the Foundation be well laid, both in your > Heads and Hearts; or else you can ne|ver attain to Confirmation, nor be > savingly built up.</HEAD> > <P>TO this end you must know <HI>what the Foundation is, and how it must > be soundly laid</HI>. The <HI>Foundation ...</P> > <P>...</P> > </DIV2> > * * * > <DIV2 N="20" TYPE="direction"> > <HEAD>DIRECT. XX. Live as with Death continually in your eye, and spend > every day in serious preparation for it, that when it cometh, you may > find your work dispatcht; and may not then cry out in vain to God to try > you once again.</HEAD> > <P>PRomise not your selves long life: Think not of death as at many > years distance, but as hard at hand. Think what will then be need|ful to > your peace and comfort, and order all your life accordingly, and prepare > ...</P> > </DIV2> > <P>And now I have given you all these <HI>Directi|ons</HI>, I shall only > request you in the close, that you will set your very hearts to the > daily serious pra|ctise of them; For there is no other way for a ripe > confirmed state of Grace: And as ever you regard the glory of God, the > honour of your Religion, the welfare of the Church and those about you, > and the <HI>living</HI> and <HI>dying</HI> comforts of your selves; O do > not sluggishly rest in an In|fant state of Grace! Did you but know how a > <HI>weak</HI> and <HI>strong</HI> Faith differ, and how a <HI>weak</HI> > and a found <HI>Confirmed Christian</HI> differ, as to the ho|nour of > God, and the good of others, and especi|ally to themselves, both in > <HI>life</HI> and <HI>death</HI>, it would quickly awaken you to a > cheerful diligence, for so high and excellent an end. Did you but well > understand the wrong that Christ and the Gos|pel have sustained in the > World, yea in <HI>England</HI>, by <HI>weak, diseased, distempered</HI> > Christians, your hearts would bleed, and with shame and grief, it would > be your secret and open lamentation. Stir up then the Grace that is > given you, and use Christs means, and do your best, and you will find > that Christ is not an insufficient Physician, nor an uneffectual > Saviour, or an empty Foun|tain; but that he is filled with all the > fulness of God, and hath Spirit and life to communicate to his Members, > <HI>Zech.</HI> 12.8. and that there is no want which he cannot supply, > and no corruption or temptation, which his Grace is not sufficient to > overcome, <HI>John</HI> 4.14. 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.9. <HI>Rom.</HI> 6.4, > 6. <HI>Col.</HI> 3.1, 3, 4.</P> > <TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER> > </DIV1> > > pfs > > ps This is not intended as an argument for p,div = div,p equality of > treatment, > nor against it for that matter. > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017, at 12:18, Marjorie Burghart wrote: > > Hello! > > > > How common: off the top of my head, I would say that it is the norm (and > > not an oddity) at least for historical essays (for what I know - it might > > be quite common in other genres). This is part of the "art of writing" I > > have been taught as a French historian: at the end of a chapter, you must > > offer a short abstract of the topics and conclusions of the current > > chapter, and offer a "transition" from those topics to topic of the next > > chapter. My PhD certainly follows this rule, as did my supervisor's > > dissertation. The typographic conventions may vary: a bit more space > > before the conclusive paragraph, a separation sign (in my PhD I chose to > > have asterisks in the shape of a triangle, I don't know if this sign has > > a name?), or sometimes nothing particular. > > > > @James: of course I could find workarounds, but what I find irksome is > > that I have to... > > > > @Martin: I don't suggest to change the jTEI format, I'm currently using > > it to write book chapters, which may explain why I'm running into this > > issue. The jTEI rules are not the source of the problem, they just make > > it more evident. > > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > > De: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <[email protected]> > > À: [email protected] > > Envoyé: Jeudi 12 Janvier 2017 16:33:00 > > Objet: Re: div and p > > > > > On Jan 12, 2017, at 7:28 AM, Paul Schaffner <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > Just to confirm that in encoding tens of thousands of books, and > > > instructing editors, the p,div vs. div,p issue in TEI has been a source > > > of frequent frustration. Far from being rare, actual examples of > > > div,p are quite common in the wild. > > > > Since we didn’t examine every book printed on Western presses > > since 1470, it would not be surprising if there were counter-examples > > we had missed. Since however we did look, I’m a little surprised > > to hear you say counter-examples are not just existent but “quite > > common”. > > > > Can you point to any examples? Can you give frequency numbers? > > Of a thousand books, do 400 have material that should go in > > paragraph-level chunks after sub-divisions? What does “quite > > common” mean, quantitatively? > > > > And … what are the typographic signals that indicate that the > > paragraphs in question are part of the higher-level division but > > not part of the immediately preceding subdivision, and not part > > of a new subdivision of its own? > > > > > > ******************************************** > > C. M. Sperberg-McQueen > > Black Mesa Technologies LLC > > [email protected] > > http://www.blackmesatech.com > > ******************************************** > -- > Paul Schaffner Digital Library Production Service > [email protected] | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/ > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:23:24 -0500 > From: Robert Foley <[email protected]> > Subject: MEDEA. Modeling semantically Enriched Digital Edition of Accounts > > Hi Martin, > > We are creating a digital version in TEI of a historic Fairfield, > Connecticut merchant account book and are looking for best practices for > the ODD and the tag set. We began by creating our own markup using the > TEI, but meanwhile we just met Kathryn Tomasek of Wheaton College at the > recent AHA history conference who suggested we use 'MEDEA' the Modeling > semantically Enriched Digital Edition of Accounts. > > Could you please direct us to the MEDEA codebook, ODD, sample template to > ensure that we have the correct markup of this already developed TEI > project? > > Thank you. > > Robert Foley > Research Historian > Bridgeport Digital Humanities Initiative > http://bridgeporthistory.us/ > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 14:10:28 -0800 > From: Martin Holmes <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: MEDEA. Modeling semantically Enriched Digital Edition of > Accounts > > Hi Robert, > > I don't know MEDEA myself, but it seems to be here: > > <https://medea.hypotheses.org/> > > It appears to be more of a working group than a standard; I don't see > any ODDs or schemas on their site. The only detailed work I know in this > area is Kathryn's: > > <http://jtei.revues.org/895> > > because I was working on the journal when it was published. That article > links to her ODD and schemas here: > > <http://www.customization.encodinghfrs.org/> > > Hope this helps, > Martin > > On 2017-01-12 01:23 PM, Robert Foley wrote: > > Hi Martin, > > > > We are creating a digital version in TEI of a historic Fairfield, > > Connecticut merchant account book and are looking for best practices for > > the ODD and the tag set. We began by creating our own markup using the > > TEI, but meanwhile we just met Kathryn Tomasek of Wheaton College at the > > recent AHA history conference who suggested we use 'MEDEA' the Modeling > > semantically Enriched Digital Edition of Accounts. > > > > Could you please direct us to the MEDEA codebook, ODD, sample template > > to ensure that we have the correct markup of this already developed TEI > > project? > > > > Thank you. > > > > Robert Foley > > Research Historian > > Bridgeport Digital Humanities Initiative > > http://bridgeporthistory.us/ > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > End of TEI-L Digest - 11 Jan 2017 to 12 Jan 2017 (#2017-10) > *********************************************************** >