Re: MEDEA. Modeling semantically Enriched Digital Edition of Accounts

I should have made clearer that I was talkibg about the content of a element. The rules for
Sent from my Huawei Mobile

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: MEDEA. Modeling semantically Enriched Digital Edition of Accounts
From: Martin de la Iglesia
To: Lou Burnard ,[email protected]
CC:

What do you make of Guidelines examples like this one then?

<facsimile>
 <surfaceGrp n="leaf1">
  <surface>
   <graphic url="page1.png"/>
  </surface>
  <surface>
   <graphic url="page2-highRes.png"/>
   <graphic url="page2-lowRes.png"/>
  </surface>
 </surfaceGrp>
</facsimile>



Am 17.01.2017 um 15:16 schrieb Lou Burnard:
The distinction is usually pretty clear though, I think. If you use <graphic> you are claiming that at this point in your source there is something
which you've decided is a graphic, rather than some text. If you use @facs, you are associating some element of your document with a graphical representation of it. In the first case the graphic component is part of the document, in the second it is a representation of the document. These seem fundamentally different to me.

Of course there are always edge cases, notably when you can't decide whether a bit of your source document is a graphic or some text. Consider for example the word "Rotonde" in this snippet https://goo.gl/photos/gCuwYDS9Fc16bK4J6 : you'd probably want to encode it as part of the text (it's the name of a famous bar near the Vavin metro station if you're wondering) but it could plausibly be considered a graphic component too. So all the following seem defensible:

<seg style="some-appropriate-css-style>Rotonde</seg>
<seg facs="rotonde-image.png">Rotonde</seg>

<zone>
    <graphic url="rotonde-image.png"/>
    <seg>Rotonde</seg>
</zone>


  On 17/01/17 09:22, Martin de la Iglesia wrote:
There are situations in which you'll want to use <graphic> instead of or in addition to @facs for pointing to facsimiles; see also the discussion at <https://github.com/TEIC/TEI/issues/1427> <https://github.com/TEIC/TEI/issues/1427><https://github.com/TEIC/TEI/issues/1427>.




--
Martin de la Iglesia
Metadata and Data Conversion

Georg-August-Universität Göttingen
Göttingen State and University Library
D-37073 Göttingen

Papendiek 14 (Historical Building, Room 1.206)
+49 551 39-14070 (Tel.)
+49 551 39-3468 (Fax)

[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://www.sub.uni-goettingen.de


Am 16.01.2017 um 18:34 schrieb Lou Burnard:
Thanks for circulating this : looks very interesting, and I look forward to discussing your "overarching questions". In the meantime, I have one quick one:
why not use the @facs attribute to point to the page image, rather than an embedded graphic? The two strategies actually mean something quite different, I think.


On 16/01/17 15:33, Robert Foley wrote:

In the next week, we plan on sharing a side-by-side view of our XML and the manuscript texts. To preface the completion of this side-by-side some of our overarching questions include: does our list/list item markup conform to TEI standard AND are we correctly representing account specific symbols with our <g> markup and corresponding  <charDecl> in our teiHeader?

>>>
>>






--
Martin de la Iglesia
Metadata and Data Conversion

Georg-August-Universität Göttingen
Göttingen State and University Library
D-37073 Göttingen

Papendiek 14 (Historical Building, Room 1.206)
+49 551 39-14070 (Tel.)
+49 551 39-3468 (Fax)

[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://www.sub.uni-goettingen.de