Principal or Editor?

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

Principal or Editor?

Burghart Marjorie
Dear all,

What is your practice for supplying the name of the scholar who made a critical edition, in the TEI Header: do you prefer <editor>, or <principal>? Reading the Guidelines, I have trouble deciding which is the more appropriate.

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

Re: Principal or Editor?

Tryon, Julia
I prefer <principal> since one is often doing more scholarly work than mere editing.


Julia R. Tryon
Assistant Professor
Commons Librarian for Research & Education
Phillips Memorial Library + Commons
Providence College
1 Cunningham Square
Providence, RI 02918
[hidden email]
http://works.bepress.com/julia_tryon/
401-865-1990








On 1/4/17, 7:34 PM, "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list on behalf of Marjorie Burghart" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

>Dear all,
>
>What is your practice for supplying the name of the scholar who made a critical edition, in the TEI Header: do you prefer <editor>, or <principal>? Reading the Guidelines, I have trouble deciding which is the more appropriate.
>
>Best,
>Marjorie
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Principal or Editor?

Martin Mueller
Is there any activity that is “more scholarly” than “mere editing”, if  one understands editing—as one should—as the most fundamental of scholarly activities? Take away editing and what have you got?

On 1/5/17, 6:18 AM, "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list on behalf of Tryon, Julia" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

    I prefer <principal> since one is often doing more scholarly work than mere editing.
   
   
   
   
   
    Julia R. Tryon
   
    Assistant Professor
   
    Commons Librarian for Research & Education
   
    Phillips Memorial Library + Commons
   
    Providence College
   
    1 Cunningham Square
   
    Providence, RI 02918
   
    [hidden email]
   
    https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__works.bepress.com_julia-5Ftryon_&d=CwIGaQ&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=rG8zxOdssqSzDRz4x1GLlmLOW60xyVXydxwnJZpkxbk&m=MNel62KSO9AcHNodpx2H5PTFYlZbEKy2USSfubrI_Lc&s=yJrGAOKNAWDzyNN04cPTo4le3sBxVdnAXNv_NAm-UtI&e= 
   
    401-865-1990
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
    On 1/4/17, 7:34 PM, "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list on behalf of Marjorie Burghart" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:
   
   
   
    >Dear all,
   
    >
   
    >What is your practice for supplying the name of the scholar who made a critical edition, in the TEI Header: do you prefer <editor>, or <principal>? Reading the Guidelines, I have trouble deciding which is the more appropriate.
   
    >
   
    >Best,
   
    >Marjorie
   
   

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

Re: Principal or Editor?

Lou Burnard-6
I have always understood that "Principal" is to be understood as in
"principal investigator", i.e. the person who signs off on the grant
application, receives the funding, gets their name on the publication,
and goes to jail if the whole thing goes badly wrong. They may or may
not be the same as the person who does real editorial work, which is why
the TEI thoughtfully provides both options.

On 05/01/17 13:32, Martin Mueller wrote:

> Is there any activity that is “more scholarly” than “mere editing”, if  one understands editing—as one should—as the most fundamental of scholarly activities? Take away editing and what have you got?
>
> On 1/5/17, 6:18 AM, "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list on behalf of Tryon, Julia" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>      I prefer <principal> since one is often doing more scholarly work than mere editing.
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      Julia R. Tryon
>      
>      Assistant Professor
>      
>      Commons Librarian for Research & Education
>      
>      Phillips Memorial Library + Commons
>      
>      Providence College
>      
>      1 Cunningham Square
>      
>      Providence, RI 02918
>      
>      [hidden email]
>      
>      https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__works.bepress.com_julia-5Ftryon_&d=CwIGaQ&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=rG8zxOdssqSzDRz4x1GLlmLOW60xyVXydxwnJZpkxbk&m=MNel62KSO9AcHNodpx2H5PTFYlZbEKy2USSfubrI_Lc&s=yJrGAOKNAWDzyNN04cPTo4le3sBxVdnAXNv_NAm-UtI&e=
>      
>      401-865-1990
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      On 1/4/17, 7:34 PM, "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list on behalf of Marjorie Burghart" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:
>      
>      
>      
>      >Dear all,
>      
>      >
>      
>      >What is your practice for supplying the name of the scholar who made a critical edition, in the TEI Header: do you prefer <editor>, or <principal>? Reading the Guidelines, I have trouble deciding which is the more appropriate.
>      
>      >
>      
>      >Best,
>      
>      >Marjorie
>      
>      
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Principal or Editor?

Tryon, Julia
In reply to this post by Martin Mueller
A lot of the work I do involves adding contextual information to the transcriptions of the articles I am encoding. To me that is more than mere editing.  Just my two cents.


Julia R. Tryon
Assistant Professor
Commons Librarian for Research & Education
Phillips Memorial Library + Commons
Providence College
1 Cunningham Square
Providence, RI 02918
[hidden email]
http://works.bepress.com/julia_tryon/
401-865-1990








On 1/5/17, 8:32 AM, "Martin Mueller" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Is there any activity that is “more scholarly” than “mere editing”, if  one understands editing—as one should—as the most fundamental of scholarly activities? Take away editing and what have you got?
>
>On 1/5/17, 6:18 AM, "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list on behalf of Tryon, Julia" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>    I prefer <principal> since one is often doing more scholarly work than mere editing.
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    Julia R. Tryon
>    
>    Assistant Professor
>    
>    Commons Librarian for Research & Education
>    
>    Phillips Memorial Library + Commons
>    
>    Providence College
>    
>    1 Cunningham Square
>    
>    Providence, RI 02918
>    
>    [hidden email]
>    
>    https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__works.bepress.com_julia-5Ftryon_&d=CwIGaQ&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=rG8zxOdssqSzDRz4x1GLlmLOW60xyVXydxwnJZpkxbk&m=MNel62KSO9AcHNodpx2H5PTFYlZbEKy2USSfubrI_Lc&s=yJrGAOKNAWDzyNN04cPTo4le3sBxVdnAXNv_NAm-UtI&e= 
>    
>    401-865-1990
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    
>    On 1/4/17, 7:34 PM, "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list on behalf of Marjorie Burghart" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:
>    
>    
>    
>    >Dear all,
>    
>    >
>    
>    >What is your practice for supplying the name of the scholar who made a critical edition, in the TEI Header: do you prefer <editor>, or <principal>? Reading the Guidelines, I have trouble deciding which is the more appropriate.
>    
>    >
>    
>    >Best,
>    
>    >Marjorie
>    
>    
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Principal or Editor?

Martin Mueller
I’m an old-fashioned philologist, for whom “editing” involves a great deal of contextual information. For instance, the famous edition of Aeschylus’ Agamemnon by Eduard Fraenkel runs to three volumes and embeds the less than 2,000 words of that text in a wealth of contextual information.  Editing may have come to be a “mere” thing in the same way in which “mere” has changed its meaning. But that is a restriction/reversal of a full meaning that it’s in the interest of the TEI to fight.  It would be better to think of editing as an activity for which digital technology, including the TEI, has created new activities and to cherish the word rather than denigrate it.




On 1/5/17, 6:38 AM, "Tryon, Julia" <[hidden email]> wrote:

    A lot of the work I do involves adding contextual information to the transcriptions of the articles I am encoding. To me that is more than mere editing.  Just my two cents.
   
   
   
   
   
    Julia R. Tryon
   
    Assistant Professor
   
    Commons Librarian for Research & Education
   
    Phillips Memorial Library + Commons
   
    Providence College
   
    1 Cunningham Square
   
    Providence, RI 02918
   
    [hidden email]
   
    https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__works.bepress.com_julia-5Ftryon_&d=CwIGaQ&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=rG8zxOdssqSzDRz4x1GLlmLOW60xyVXydxwnJZpkxbk&m=i19vH3rfNBJkQxI6PN13aUySEN1jJ_L3Z1broEsXwss&s=XSriX_ZwCghRM17VbBc9U4cnE0bb7pZ4ZxyBOYvJqLA&e= 
   
    401-865-1990
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
    On 1/5/17, 8:32 AM, "Martin Mueller" <[hidden email]> wrote:
   
   
   
    >Is there any activity that is “more scholarly” than “mere editing”, if  one understands editing—as one should—as the most fundamental of scholarly activities? Take away editing and what have you got?
   
    >
   
    >On 1/5/17, 6:18 AM, "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list on behalf of Tryon, Julia" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:
   
    >
   
    >    I prefer <principal> since one is often doing more scholarly work than mere editing.
   
    >    
   
    >    
   
    >    
   
    >    
   
    >    
   
    >    Julia R. Tryon
   
    >    
   
    >    Assistant Professor
   
    >    
   
    >    Commons Librarian for Research & Education
   
    >    
   
    >    Phillips Memorial Library + Commons
   
    >    
   
    >    Providence College
   
    >    
   
    >    1 Cunningham Square
   
    >    
   
    >    Providence, RI 02918
   
    >    
   
    >    [hidden email]
   
    >    
   
    >    https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__works.bepress.com_julia-5Ftryon_&d=CwIGaQ&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=rG8zxOdssqSzDRz4x1GLlmLOW60xyVXydxwnJZpkxbk&m=MNel62KSO9AcHNodpx2H5PTFYlZbEKy2USSfubrI_Lc&s=yJrGAOKNAWDzyNN04cPTo4le3sBxVdnAXNv_NAm-UtI&e= 
   
    >    
   
    >    401-865-1990
   
    >    
   
    >    
   
    >    
   
    >    
   
    >    
   
    >    
   
    >    
   
    >    
   
    >    
   
    >    
   
    >    
   
    >    
   
    >    
   
    >    
   
    >    
   
    >    
   
    >    
   
    >    On 1/4/17, 7:34 PM, "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list on behalf of Marjorie Burghart" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:
   
    >    
   
    >    
   
    >    
   
    >    >Dear all,
   
    >    
   
    >    >
   
    >    
   
    >    >What is your practice for supplying the name of the scholar who made a critical edition, in the TEI Header: do you prefer <editor>, or <principal>? Reading the Guidelines, I have trouble deciding which is the more appropriate.
   
    >    
   
    >    >
   
    >    
   
    >    >Best,
   
    >    
   
    >    >Marjorie
   
    >    
   
    >    
   
    >
   
   

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

Re: Principal or Editor?

James Cummings-4
In reply to this post by Lou Burnard-6
This is my understanding of it as well.  If I were editor of a
funded project I would use <principal> and <editor> in my
<titleStmt> to delineate those responsibilities.  It also enables
you to to have a different person for editor and principal
investigator as Lou suggests, or indeed multiple principal
investigators or editors some of whom are not the other.  I've
definitely been involved in projects with co-PIs where one of
them is not the editor of the digital texts involved.  So it
isn't a mutually exclusive choice. If you are both things, then
use both.

-James

On 05/01/17 13:37, Lou Burnard wrote:

> I have always understood that "Principal" is to be understood
> as in "principal investigator", i.e. the person who signs off
> on the grant application, receives the funding, gets their name
> on the publication, and goes to jail if the whole thing goes
> badly wrong. They may or may not be the same as the person who
> does real editorial work, which is why the TEI thoughtfully
> provides both options.
>
> On 05/01/17 13:32, Martin Mueller wrote:
>> Is there any activity that is “more scholarly” than “mere
>> editing”, if  one understands editing—as one should—as the
>> most fundamental of scholarly activities? Take away editing
>> and what have you got?
>>
>> On 1/5/17, 6:18 AM, "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public
>> discussion list on behalf of Tryon, Julia"
>> <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>      On 1/4/17, 7:34 PM, "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative)
>> public discussion list on behalf of Marjorie Burghart"
>> <[hidden email] on behalf of
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>                     >Dear all,
>>           >
>>           >What is your practice for supplying the name of the
>> scholar who made a critical edition, in the TEI Header: do you
>> prefer <editor>, or <principal>? Reading the Guidelines, I
>> have trouble deciding which is the more appropriate.
>>           >
>>           >Best,
>>           >Marjorie
>>


--
Dr James Cummings, Academic IT Services, University of Oxford,
TEI Consultations: [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Principal or Editor?

Martin Mueller
I agree that “principal” is not a scholarly or scientific term at all. In “principal investigator”, typically abbreviated as “PI” the science part of the phrase lies in ‘investigator’, and ‘principal’ refers to administrative functions—as it does in the uses of the word as a noun: for my grandchildren in elementary school the principal may be a source of terror or admiration.

On 1/5/17, 6:50 AM, "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list on behalf of James Cummings" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

    This is my understanding of it as well.  If I were editor of a
    funded project I would use <principal> and <editor> in my
    <titleStmt> to delineate those responsibilities.  It also enables
    you to to have a different person for editor and principal
    investigator as Lou suggests, or indeed multiple principal
    investigators or editors some of whom are not the other.  I've
    definitely been involved in projects with co-PIs where one of
    them is not the editor of the digital texts involved.  So it
    isn't a mutually exclusive choice. If you are both things, then
    use both.
   
    -James
   
    On 05/01/17 13:37, Lou Burnard wrote:
    > I have always understood that "Principal" is to be understood
    > as in "principal investigator", i.e. the person who signs off
    > on the grant application, receives the funding, gets their name
    > on the publication, and goes to jail if the whole thing goes
    > badly wrong. They may or may not be the same as the person who
    > does real editorial work, which is why the TEI thoughtfully
    > provides both options.
    >
    > On 05/01/17 13:32, Martin Mueller wrote:
    >> Is there any activity that is “more scholarly” than “mere
    >> editing”, if  one understands editing—as one should—as the
    >> most fundamental of scholarly activities? Take away editing
    >> and what have you got?
    >>
    >> On 1/5/17, 6:18 AM, "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public
    >> discussion list on behalf of Tryon, Julia"
    >> <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>      On 1/4/17, 7:34 PM, "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative)
    >> public discussion list on behalf of Marjorie Burghart"
    >> <[hidden email] on behalf of
    >> [hidden email]> wrote:
    >>                     >Dear all,
    >>           >
    >>           >What is your practice for supplying the name of the
    >> scholar who made a critical edition, in the TEI Header: do you
    >> prefer <editor>, or <principal>? Reading the Guidelines, I
    >> have trouble deciding which is the more appropriate.
    >>           >
    >>           >Best,
    >>           >Marjorie
    >>
   
   
    --
    Dr James Cummings, Academic IT Services, University of Oxford,
    TEI Consultations: [hidden email]
   

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

Re: Principal or Editor?

Thomas A. Schmitz
In reply to this post by Martin Mueller
On 01/05/2017 02:50 PM, Martin Mueller wrote:
> the famous edition of Aeschylus’ Agamemnon by Eduard Fraenkel runs to three volumes and embeds the less than 2,000 words of that text


I think you mean "less than 2000 lines"; the Agamemnon is a bit longer
than 2,000 words. And yes, I also was thinking of what "editor" means in
classics and winced when I read the words "mere editor."

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

Re: Principal or Editor?

Martin Mueller
Indeed, 2000 lines. My error before breakfast and coffee. And yes, “wincing” is the appropriate response to the phrase “mere editor.” Ask Jerry McGann

On 1/5/17, 7:01 AM, "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list on behalf of Thomas A. Schmitz" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

    On 01/05/2017 02:50 PM, Martin Mueller wrote:
    > the famous edition of Aeschylus’ Agamemnon by Eduard Fraenkel runs to three volumes and embeds the less than 2,000 words of that text
   
   
    I think you mean "less than 2000 lines"; the Agamemnon is a bit longer
    than 2,000 words. And yes, I also was thinking of what "editor" means in
    classics and winced when I read the words "mere editor."
   
    Thomas
   

Loading...