Daniel Webster breaks the TEI Guidelines

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Daniel Webster breaks the TEI Guidelines

Sewell, David R. (drs2n)
This is amusing. I'm working with the Papers of Daniel Webster (an American
statesman of the early 19th century), and one of his letters begins thus, as it
appears in the printed edition:

====
TO JAMES HERVEY BINGHAM

P.S. The top of a letter is a new place for a postscript; excuse it, for its
design is to beg you to give my love to your and my friends P. and E.
  Salisbury, April 3, 1804.
Good Hervey,
  I am really much obliged by your ready attention to my requests [etc.
...]
====

I don't suppose that's grounds for requesting that <postscript> be added to
model.divTopPart? :-)

(Obviously, a generic div or divN will solve the tagging problem. But
semantically, isn't this a postscript, regardless of its position? And
presumably it was placed there after the body of the letter had been written.
Would anyone argue for encoding it at the end of the document, with a modifier
of some sort to indicate place?)

David


--
David Sewell
Manager of Digital Initiatives
The University of Virginia Press
Email: [hidden email]   Tel: +1 434 924 9973
Web: http://www.upress.virginia.edu/rotunda
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Daniel Webster breaks the TEI Guidelines

Lou Burnard-6
If you add it to model.divTopPart, you will permit postscript within
postscript, which even Mr Webster might baulk at. Add it
model.divwrapper if you like though!




On 24/01/18 19:31, David Sewell wrote:

> This is amusing. I'm working with the Papers of Daniel Webster (an
> American statesman of the early 19th century), and one of his letters
> begins thus, as it appears in the printed edition:
>
> ====
> TO JAMES HERVEY BINGHAM
>
> P.S. The top of a letter is a new place for a postscript; excuse it,
> for its design is to beg you to give my love to your and my friends P.
> and E.
>                 Salisbury, April 3, 1804.
> Good Hervey,
>     I am really much obliged by your ready attention to my requests
> [etc. ...]
> ====
>
> I don't suppose that's grounds for requesting that <postscript> be
> added to model.divTopPart? :-)
>
> (Obviously, a generic div or divN will solve the tagging problem. But
> semantically, isn't this a postscript, regardless of its position? And
> presumably it was placed there after the body of the letter had been
> written. Would anyone argue for encoding it at the end of the
> document, with a modifier of some sort to indicate place?)
>
> David
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Daniel Webster breaks the TEI Guidelines

Ondine LeBlanc
In reply to this post by Sewell, David R. (drs2n)
You could decide that the encoding guidelines diverge from the print policy and dictate that a postscript should always migrate to the end of the document (much like those editions that always move a dateline to the top . . . ).

Ah, the power of Editorial Directives!

O.

-----Original Message-----
From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of David Sewell
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 2:32 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Daniel Webster breaks the TEI Guidelines

This is amusing. I'm working with the Papers of Daniel Webster (an American statesman of the early 19th century), and one of his letters begins thus, as it appears in the printed edition:

====
TO JAMES HERVEY BINGHAM

P.S. The top of a letter is a new place for a postscript; excuse it, for its design is to beg you to give my love to your and my friends P. and E.
 Salisbury, April 3, 1804.
Good Hervey,
 I am really much obliged by your ready attention to my requests [etc.
...]
====

I don't suppose that's grounds for requesting that <postscript> be added to model.divTopPart? :-)

(Obviously, a generic div or divN will solve the tagging problem. But semantically, isn't this a postscript, regardless of its position? And presumably it was placed there after the body of the letter had been written.
Would anyone argue for encoding it at the end of the document, with a modifier of some sort to indicate place?)

David


--
David Sewell
Manager of Digital Initiatives
The University of Virginia Press
Email: [hidden email]   Tel: +1 434 924 9973
Web: http://www.upress.virginia.edu/rotunda
--
Yankees in the West is on display at the MHS Monday through Saturday from 10 AM to 4 PM through 6 April, 2018. More information is available at www.masshist.org..

Ondine LeBlanc, Worthington C. Ford Editor of Publications
Massachusetts Historical Society
1154 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02215
Phone: 617-646-0524, Fax: 617-859-0074
Email: [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Daniel Webster breaks the TEI Guidelines

Paul Schaffner
Hypothetically, of course, one could add a postscript
*anywhere* on or in a completed letter, assuming that
there is space to do so, including between the lines
of a paragraph.

 I hope to visit you soon. Perhaps

p.s. Forget I said this; my plans have changed!

as soon as next week....

which really would throw a spanner into the scheme.
I'd be tempted to handle this with some kind of
anchor and pointer. But it could get messy.

But I love the example.

pfs

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018, at 14:45, Ondine LeBlanc wrote:

> You could decide that the encoding guidelines diverge from the print
> policy and dictate that a postscript should always migrate to the end of
> the document (much like those editions that always move a dateline to
> the top . . . ).
>
> Ah, the power of Editorial Directives!
>
> O.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of David Sewell
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 2:32 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Daniel Webster breaks the TEI Guidelines
>
> This is amusing. I'm working with the Papers of Daniel Webster (an
> American statesman of the early 19th century), and one of his letters
> begins thus, as it appears in the printed edition:
>
> ====
> TO JAMES HERVEY BINGHAM
>
> P.S. The top of a letter is a new place for a postscript; excuse it, for
> its design is to beg you to give my love to your and my friends P. and
> E.
>  Salisbury, April 3, 1804.
> Good Hervey,
>  I am really much obliged by your ready attention to my requests [etc.
> ...]
> ====
>
> I don't suppose that's grounds for requesting that <postscript> be added
> to model.divTopPart? :-)
>
> (Obviously, a generic div or divN will solve the tagging problem. But
> semantically, isn't this a postscript, regardless of its position? And
> presumably it was placed there after the body of the letter had been
> written.
> Would anyone argue for encoding it at the end of the document, with a
> modifier of some sort to indicate place?)
>
> David
>
>
> --
> David Sewell
> Manager of Digital Initiatives
> The University of Virginia Press
> Email: [hidden email]   Tel: +1 434 924 9973
> Web: http://www.upress.virginia.edu/rotunda
> --
> Yankees in the West is on display at the MHS Monday through Saturday
> from 10 AM to 4 PM through 6 April, 2018. More information is available
> at www.masshist.org..
>
> Ondine LeBlanc, Worthington C. Ford Editor of Publications
> Massachusetts Historical Society
> 1154 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02215
> Phone: 617-646-0524, Fax: 617-859-0074
> Email: [hidden email]


--
Paul Schaffner  Digital Content & Collections
University of Michigan Libraries
[hidden email] | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Daniel Webster breaks the TEI Guidelines

David Denison
In reply to this post by Sewell, David R. (drs2n)
This is a belated response from a first-time contributor, with a question for the list. David Sewell cited a self-conscious PS at the very top of a letter and asked

> Would anyone argue for encoding it at the end of the document, with a modifier of some sort to indicate place?

Well, maybe. In our on-going edition of the Mary Hamilton Papers (http://www.projects.alc.manchester.ac.uk/image-to-text/), we think logical continuity of content is even more useful than absolute faithfulness to physical layout. Writers sometimes fill every last scrap of white space with continuations of the letter and PSs in various orientations, not to mention leaving space for an address panel which will be on the outside of the folded sheet. Our policy in the XML has been to indicate actual position but to move interruptions of this kind to their logical place, or to the end; a good example is the letter HAM/1/10/1/25.

In the case of the delightful Daniel Webster PS, I'd be tempted to leave it in situ because of its content and because it wouldn't interrupt the text of the letter there. Then it would just be a question of mark-up. (Paul Schaffner's hypothetical but entirely plausible mid-letter PS might be trickier.)

My question is how best to mark material that *is* moved. So far we've been placing an anchor at the original location tied to paired ref tags at the destination location. We're currently revising our mark-up to improve TEI conformance, so now would be a good time to find out whether anchor-ref is the right way to handle this. Advice welcome. Thanks.

David
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Daniel Webster breaks the TEI Guidelines

James Cummings-5

Hi David,


I think this is a good approach. If you are using <text> element then what you are privileging in your markup are the intellectual structures you find in the text. Imagine a a parallel example: A heading of a division of a magazine article that is provided as a cut-in from the right margin into the middle of the second paragraph. It would be clear from context that this was a heading for the section or article and in coming to that interpretation I would mark it as a <head> immediately inside the <div> at the top. I might indicate through @rend or @rendition an informally or formally (respectively) description of where this is ('right-margin-cut-in-header' or the formal CSS to float it there). I think the same is true of a post-script. Moreover, I don't think indicating the place by an anchor is necessary or accurate if you are modelling your semantic understanding of the text. 


If, however, you do care precisely where this is, then I would be referencing a <zone> for the <surface> either in a <facsimile> (if you just care about the location either on an image of the surface or its place in a coordinate space you've created) or a <zone> in a  <surface> in a <sourceDoc> if you wish to reference a non-interpretative transcription from your interpretative one. Since I don't tend to want to do that I would either do the @rend/@rendition or <facsimile> methods personally.


Best wishes,

James 


--

Dr James Cummings, [hidden email]

School of English Literature, Language, and Linguistics, Newcastle University


From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list <[hidden email]> on behalf of David Denison <[hidden email]>
Sent: 29 January 2018 12:55:58
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Daniel Webster breaks the TEI Guidelines
 
This is a belated response from a first-time contributor, with a question for the list. David Sewell cited a self-conscious PS at the very top of a letter and asked

> Would anyone argue for encoding it at the end of the document, with a modifier of some sort to indicate place?

Well, maybe. In our on-going edition of the Mary Hamilton Papers (http://www.projects.alc.manchester.ac.uk/image-to-text/), we think logical continuity of content is even more useful than absolute faithfulness to physical layout. Writers sometimes fill every last scrap of white space with continuations of the letter and PSs in various orientations, not to mention leaving space for an address panel which will be on the outside of the folded sheet. Our policy in the XML has been to indicate actual position but to move interruptions of this kind to their logical place, or to the end; a good example is the letter HAM/1/10/1/25.

In the case of the delightful Daniel Webster PS, I'd be tempted to leave it in situ because of its content and because it wouldn't interrupt the text of the letter there. Then it would just be a question of mark-up. (Paul Schaffner's hypothetical but entirely plausible mid-letter PS might be trickier.)

My question is how best to mark material that *is* moved. So far we've been placing an anchor at the original location tied to paired ref tags at the destination location. We're currently revising our mark-up to improve TEI conformance, so now would be a good time to find out whether anchor-ref is the right way to handle this. Advice welcome. Thanks.

David
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Daniel Webster breaks the TEI Guidelines

David Denison
In reply to this post by Sewell, David R. (drs2n)
Hi James,

Many thanks for this. You said

> Moreover, I don't think indicating the place by an anchor is necessary or accurate if you are modelling your semantic understanding of the text.
> If, however, you do care precisely where this is, <snip>

We don't currently have the resources to do a proper 2D mapping with zones and surface between XML and image, nor do we expect a grant for a comprehensive edition to stretch far enough for that. But in any case, with this material we don't think the payoff would really be worth it. Apart from the planned personography, annotation, search engine, etc., what we want above all is to (i) provide accurate text with as much continuity as possible, yet (ii) make it easy for a reader to line up text and image if desired. I'll have a look at the @rend option, but I'd be sorry to lose the visual clue on-screen (symbol with tooltip) that shows roughly where moved text has come from. An anchor in the XML makes that easy. Always willing to learn new tricks, though.

best
David