MEDEA. Modeling semantically Enriched Digital Edition of Accounts

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

MEDEA. Modeling semantically Enriched Digital Edition of Accounts

Robert Foley-2
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


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: MEDEA. Modeling semantically Enriched Digital Edition of Accounts

Martin Holmes
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/
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: MEDEA. Modeling semantically Enriched Digital Edition of Accounts

Georg Vogeler-2
Dear Robert,

as Kathryn already pointed out, MEDEA is persuing a slightly different
aim as it tries to map TEI markup to a RDF ontology (which seems us
better suited for handling economic data extracted from text) - so we
suggest you to use any basic encoding which fits to the textual
structure of your source: if it looks table style use <tr> per entry, if
its list style use <li><item>, if you feel comfortable with paragraphs
use <div><p> or just avoid to much fuzz by using <ab>, MEDEA doesn't
mind. Only follow the vocabulary of the MEDEA ontology Kathryn has sent
you to add the interpretational layer.

Of course you could replace the generic textual markup with added @ana
attributes with dedicated markup using ODD. I did a preleminary version
of this in a (German)
project (http://gams.uni-graz.at/srbas/) where you can find the ODD used
at
http://gams.uni-graz.at/archive/objects/context:srbas/datastreams/ODD/content,
an XSLT to create pure TEI with @ana markup at
http://gams.uni-graz.at/archive/objects/cirilo:srbas/datastreams/TOTEI/content
and the XSLT creating the RDF out of this at
http://gams.uni-graz.at/archive/objects/cirilo:srbas/datastreams/TORDF/content
. Transactionography could be another possiblity for a path from
transcription to RDF although we haven't yet set up the necessary
stylesheets to automate this.

We are on our way to publish more samples on our approach and develop
demonstration workflows, so we would be very happy to read a bit about
your project and the goals you are striving for with your encoding and
look for possibilities to support you. Just contact us off-list!

I've uploaded a draft version of the paper, Kathryn is pointing to, at
gams.uni-graz.at/rem/Vogeler2016.pdf.

Georg

> Betreff:     Re: TEI-L Digest - 11 Jan 2017 to 12 Jan 2017 (#2017-10)
> Datum:     Fri, 13 Jan 2017 10:09:05 -0500
> Von:     Kathryn Tomasek <[hidden email]>
> Antwort an:     Kathryn Tomasek <[hidden email]>
> An:     [hidden email]
>
>
>
> 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 RechnungenundAmtsbüchern, ed. by JürgenSarnowksy, 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.
>
>
> Am 12.01.2017 um 23:10 schrieb Martin Holmes:
>> 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/
>>>
>>>
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: MEDEA. Modeling semantically Enriched Digital Edition of Accounts

Robert Foley-2
Dear Georg and Kathryn,

Thank you for the quick and detailed response to our inquiry. We certainly are faced with some structural questions when comparing our current markup with that of the MEDEA project; however, we are going to continue forward with our markup until we have a solid representation of what we have done to share with the group. The development of our code is available on Github here: https://github.com/ConnecticutDigital/Thomas-Bartram-Digital-Archives.

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? 

We will formalize these a bit more in the coming week. Once again thank you all for your help. More from us soon!

Robert

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Georg Vogeler <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Robert,

as Kathryn already pointed out, MEDEA is persuing a slightly different
aim as it tries to map TEI markup to a RDF ontology (which seems us
better suited for handling economic data extracted from text) - so we
suggest you to use any basic encoding which fits to the textual
structure of your source: if it looks table style use <tr> per entry, if
its list style use <li><item>, if you feel comfortable with paragraphs
use <div><p> or just avoid to much fuzz by using <ab>, MEDEA doesn't
mind. Only follow the vocabulary of the MEDEA ontology Kathryn has sent
you to add the interpretational layer.

Of course you could replace the generic textual markup with added @ana
attributes with dedicated markup using ODD. I did a preleminary version
of this in a (German)
project (http://gams.uni-graz.at/srbas/) where you can find the ODD used
at
http://gams.uni-graz.at/archive/objects/context:srbas/datastreams/ODD/content,
an XSLT to create pure TEI with @ana markup at
http://gams.uni-graz.at/archive/objects/cirilo:srbas/datastreams/TOTEI/content
and the XSLT creating the RDF out of this at
http://gams.uni-graz.at/archive/objects/cirilo:srbas/datastreams/TORDF/content
. Transactionography could be another possiblity for a path from
transcription to RDF although we haven't yet set up the necessary
stylesheets to automate this.

We are on our way to publish more samples on our approach and develop
demonstration workflows, so we would be very happy to read a bit about
your project and the goals you are striving for with your encoding and
look for possibilities to support you. Just contact us off-list!

I've uploaded a draft version of the paper, Kathryn is pointing to, at
gams.uni-graz.at/rem/Vogeler2016.pdf.

Georg

> Betreff:     Re: TEI-L Digest - 11 Jan 2017 to 12 Jan 2017 (#2017-10)
> Datum:     Fri, 13 Jan 2017 10:09:05 -0500
> Von:     Kathryn Tomasek <[hidden email]>
> Antwort an:     Kathryn Tomasek <[hidden email]>
> An:     [hidden email]
>
>
>
> 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 RechnungenundAmtsbüchern, ed. by JürgenSarnowksy, 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.
>
>
> Am 12.01.2017 um 23:10 schrieb Martin Holmes:
>> 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/
>>>
>>>
>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: MEDEA. Modeling semantically Enriched Digital Edition of Accounts

Lou Burnard-6
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? 

>>>
>>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: MEDEA. Modeling semantically Enriched Digital Edition of Accounts

Robert Foley-2
I will take a look at @facs rather than embedded page graphics. Thanks Lou.

Meanwhile, for an example of our side-by-side XML and manuscript, you can see it here: 

Robert

On Jan 16, 2017, at 12:34 PM, Lou Burnard <[hidden email]> wrote:

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? 

>>>
>>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: MEDEA. Modeling semantically Enriched Digital Edition of Accounts

Martin de la Iglesia-2
In reply to this post by Lou Burnard-6
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>.



-- 
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)

[hidden email]
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? 

>>>
>>




  



	
	
	
	
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: MEDEA. Modeling semantically Enriched Digital Edition of Accounts

Lou Burnard-6
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>.



-- 
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)

[hidden email]
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? 

>>>
>>




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: MEDEA. Modeling semantically Enriched Digital Edition of Accounts

Martin de la Iglesia-2
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>.



-- 
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)

[hidden email]
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)

[hidden email]
http://www.sub.uni-goettingen.de
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: MEDEA. Modeling semantically Enriched Digital Edition of Accounts

Lou Burnard-6
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 ,[hidden email]
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>.



-- 
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)

[hidden email]
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)

[hidden email]
http://www.sub.uni-goettingen.de
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Fwd: Re: MEDEA. Modeling semantically Enriched Digital Edition of Accounts

Lou Burnard-6


Sigh, Let's try that again with a sensible keyboard.
My earlier message didn't make clear that the usage rules for the graphic element are context-dependent. My description related to its usage within the TEXT element. When it's used within a FACSIMILE element (the semantics of which are quite different, after all) it's used differently. Apologies for any residual confusion.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: MEDEA. Modeling semantically Enriched Digital Edition of Accounts
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 08:51:01 +0000
From: Lou Burnard [hidden email]
Reply-To: Lou Burnard [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]


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 ,[hidden email]
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)

[hidden email][hidden email]
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)

[hidden email][hidden email]
http://www.sub.uni-goettingen.de

Loading...