a question about surfaceGrp

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

a question about surfaceGrp

Martin Mueller

Is there a good way of grouping <facsimile> elements so that each <text> childe of a <group> element  has its own <facsimile> section?

 

I have the following use case in mind.  In our EarlyPrint project we provide enriched versions of TCP texts, some of them with <facsimile> elements that map to image sets currently in the Internet Archive.  You can find examples at https://texts.earlyprint.org.

 

Some TCP texts use the <group> element. Typical examples are the Ben Jonson folio (A04632) or the three volumes of Hakluyt (A02495).  We have mounted these texts on our site, but we also make them available for downloading so that folks can use them for their various projects.  There are reasons why one would want to keep all the texts of the group together. There are also reasons why you would want to split them. We split the Jonson plays because the predecessor of this site was a drama site. A user who waits for the very long three volumes of Hakluyt to load into eXist might have preferred a decision to split the text into volumes. There is the additional factor that the Internet Archive has images for the first two volumes, but not the third. And so on.

 

So it would be nice to have a solution that lets you split or combine texts with minimal effort. If the facsimile section is one undifferentiated stream of surface children from 1 to more than 1000, it takes some (and probably manual) effort to figure out the start and end points of surfaces for each <text> element.

 

Is <surfaceGrp>  an appropriate element for establishing an explicit relationship between a <text>child of <group> and its corresponding image set? The use case given in the Guidelines talks about recto and verso. If the answer to my question is ‘yes’, it might be a good idea to mention a use case of this type so that it becomes apparent to naïve users like myself to see right away that <surfaceGrp> can be used for any number of purposes ranging from the micro structure of a page (or even part of it) to the macrostructure of works and volumes.  

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: a question about surfaceGrp

Matthew Davis-2
What I’ve done—and my use case is slightly different in that I’m using the embedded transcription model using <sourceDoc> rather than <text> as a top-level element as I wanted to retain the structure of the physical volume more than split out words at the <seg> level—is wrapped gatherings for a volume in a <surfaceGrp> element then each individual left in a <surfaceGrp> as well.  So the structure looks like this:

<sourceDoc xml:id="TextContent">
        <surfaceGrp xml:id="g.9" n="gathering">
            <surfaceGrp xml:id="f.73" n="folio">
                <surface n="verso">
                    <label>Folio 73 Verso</label>
                    <graphic url="St_John_56_73v.jpg"/>
                    <zone n="EETS.QD.I">
                        <line n="l.1"> Quis dabit capiti meo fontem lacrima<ex>rum</ex> &#x61b;
                        </line>
                    </zone>
                    <zone n="EETS.QD.1">
                        <line n="l.1">
                            <hi rend="capital_missing_3">W</hi>ho shall yeve / to myne heed a welle
                            &#x61b; </line>
                        <line n="l.2"> Off bytter teers / my sorowes to compleyne &#x61b; </line>
                        <line n="l.3"> Of a grete condwyt / of trubly waters felle &#x61b; </line>
                        <line n="l.4"> Doun to stylle / fro myne eyen tweyne &#x61b; </line>
                        <line n="l.5"> To schewe the constreynt / of my dedly peyne &#x61b; </line>
                        <line n="l.6"> Whan I allas / behyld and dede see &#x61b; </line>
                        <line n="l.7"> My dere soone blede / in eu<ex>er</ex>y veyne &#x61b; </line>
                        <line n="l.8"> A twene too þeues / nayled to a Tree &#x61b; </line>
                    </zone>
   […]
                </surface>
            </surfaceGrp>
        </surfaceGrp>
   
</sourceDoc>

I don’t know if it directly answers your question, but <surfaceGrp> is allowed to nest like that without causing a validation issue and the definition of <surfaceGrp> given in the guidelines certainly seems to support what you’re suggesting.

All best,
—Matt



On Mar 17, 2018, at 7:58 PM, Martin Mueller <[hidden email]> wrote:

Is there a good way of grouping <facsimile> elements so that each <text> childe of a <group> element  has its own <facsimile> section?
 
I have the following use case in mind.  In our EarlyPrint project we provide enriched versions of TCP texts, some of them with <facsimile> elements that map to image sets currently in the Internet Archive.  You can find examples at https://texts.earlyprint.org.
 
Some TCP texts use the <group> element. Typical examples are the Ben Jonson folio (A04632) or the three volumes of Hakluyt (A02495).  We have mounted these texts on our site, but we also make them available for downloading so that folks can use them for their various projects.  There are reasons why one would want to keep all the texts of the group together. There are also reasons why you would want to split them. We split the Jonson plays because the predecessor of this site was a drama site. A user who waits for the very long three volumes of Hakluyt to load into eXist might have preferred a decision to split the text into volumes. There is the additional factor that the Internet Archive has images for the first two volumes, but not the third. And so on.
 
So it would be nice to have a solution that lets you split or combine texts with minimal effort. If the facsimile section is one undifferentiated stream of surface children from 1 to more than 1000, it takes some (and probably manual) effort to figure out the start and end points of surfaces for each <text> element.
 
Is <surfaceGrp>  an appropriate element for establishing an explicit relationship between a <text>child of <group> and its corresponding image set? The use case given in the Guidelines talks about recto and verso. If the answer to my question is ‘yes’, it might be a good idea to mention a use case of this type so that it becomes apparent to naïve users like myself to see right away that <surfaceGrp> can be used for any number of purposes ranging from the micro structure of a page (or even part of it) to the macrostructure of works and volumes.  

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: a question about surfaceGrp

James Cummings-5
In reply to this post by Martin Mueller

Hi Martin,


If I'm understanding correctly, you wanting to group surfaces relating to a single text, why not just repeat <facsimile>, one corresponding to each <text>? If it is that you want to group sets of facsimile elements (for each <group>) then I don't think it is worth the hassle personally. 


I'd just do something like: 

====
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
  <teiHeader>...</teiHeader
   <facsimile xml:id="facs1">
      <surface xml:id="facs1-p1"></surface>
   </facsimile>
   <facsimile xml:id="facs2">
      <surface xml:id="facs2-p1"></surface>
   </facsimile>
   <facsimile xml:id="facs3">
      <surface xml:id="facs3-p1"></surface>
   </facsimile>
  <text>
     <group>
        <text xml:id="text1">
           <body><p/></body>
        </text>
        <text xml:id="text2">
           <body><p/></body>
        </text>
     </group>
  </text>
   <text xml:id="text3">
      <body><p/></body>
   </text>
</TEI>

=====


But I may be misunderstanding your need?



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 Martin Mueller <[hidden email]>
Sent: 17 March 2018 23:58:08
To: [hidden email]
Subject: a question about surfaceGrp
 

Is there a good way of grouping <facsimile> elements so that each <text> childe of a <group> element  has its own <facsimile> section?

 

I have the following use case in mind.  In our EarlyPrint project we provide enriched versions of TCP texts, some of them with <facsimile> elements that map to image sets currently in the Internet Archive.  You can find examples at https://texts.earlyprint.org.

 

Some TCP texts use the <group> element. Typical examples are the Ben Jonson folio (A04632) or the three volumes of Hakluyt (A02495).  We have mounted these texts on our site, but we also make them available for downloading so that folks can use them for their various projects.  There are reasons why one would want to keep all the texts of the group together. There are also reasons why you would want to split them. We split the Jonson plays because the predecessor of this site was a drama site. A user who waits for the very long three volumes of Hakluyt to load into eXist might have preferred a decision to split the text into volumes. There is the additional factor that the Internet Archive has images for the first two volumes, but not the third. And so on.

 

So it would be nice to have a solution that lets you split or combine texts with minimal effort. If the facsimile section is one undifferentiated stream of surface children from 1 to more than 1000, it takes some (and probably manual) effort to figure out the start and end points of surfaces for each <text> element.

 

Is <surfaceGrp>  an appropriate element for establishing an explicit relationship between a <text>child of <group> and its corresponding image set? The use case given in the Guidelines talks about recto and verso. If the answer to my question is ‘yes’, it might be a good idea to mention a use case of this type so that it becomes apparent to naïve users like myself to see right away that <surfaceGrp> can be used for any number of purposes ranging from the micro structure of a page (or even part of it) to the macrostructure of works and volumes.  

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: a question about surfaceGrp

Martin Mueller

Thank you, James.  What you suggest was actually my first thought, but then I thought it couldn’t possibly be that simple. So you have a sequence of facsimile elements, each of them mapped to a text child of group through some explicit linking, [hidden email].  If you want to treat the text as separate documents (Volpone, Catiline etc. in the Jonson folio),  you just combine the relevant facsimile with the relevant and do something about the header.

 

As long as there is some explicit link between the facsimile and corresponding text elements, the use of surfaceGrp doesn’t really buy you anything. Or does it?

 

From: James Cummings <[hidden email]>
Date: Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 10:48 PM
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, Martin Mueller <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: a question about surfaceGrp

 

Hi Martin,

 

If I'm understanding correctly, you wanting to group surfaces relating to a single text, why not just repeat <facsimile>, one corresponding to each <text>? If it is that you want to group sets of facsimile elements (for each <group>) then I don't think it is worth the hassle personally. 

 

I'd just do something like: 

====

<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">

  <teiHeader>...</teiHeader

   <facsimile xml:id="facs1">

      <surface xml:id="facs1-p1"></surface>

   </facsimile>

   <facsimile xml:id="facs2">

      <surface xml:id="facs2-p1"></surface>

   </facsimile>

   <facsimile xml:id="facs3">

      <surface xml:id="facs3-p1"></surface>

   </facsimile>

  <text>

     <group>

        <text xml:id="text1">

           <body><p/></body>

        </text>

        <text xml:id="text2">

           <body><p/></body>

        </text>

     </group>

  </text>

   <text xml:id="text3">

      <body><p/></body>

   </text>

</TEI>

=====

 

But I may be misunderstanding your need?

 

 

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 Martin Mueller <[hidden email]>
Sent: 17 March 2018 23:58:08
To: [hidden email]
Subject: a question about surfaceGrp

 

Is there a good way of grouping <facsimile> elements so that each <text> childe of a <group> element  has its own <facsimile> section?

 

I have the following use case in mind.  In our EarlyPrint project we provide enriched versions of TCP texts, some of them with <facsimile> elements that map to image sets currently in the Internet Archive.  You can find examples at https://texts.earlyprint.org.

 

Some TCP texts use the <group> element. Typical examples are the Ben Jonson folio (A04632) or the three volumes of Hakluyt (A02495).  We have mounted these texts on our site, but we also make them available for downloading so that folks can use them for their various projects.  There are reasons why one would want to keep all the texts of the group together. There are also reasons why you would want to split them. We split the Jonson plays because the predecessor of this site was a drama site. A user who waits for the very long three volumes of Hakluyt to load into eXist might have preferred a decision to split the text into volumes. There is the additional factor that the Internet Archive has images for the first two volumes, but not the third. And so on.

 

So it would be nice to have a solution that lets you split or combine texts with minimal effort. If the facsimile section is one undifferentiated stream of surface children from 1 to more than 1000, it takes some (and probably manual) effort to figure out the start and end points of surfaces for each <text> element.

 

Is <surfaceGrp>  an appropriate element for establishing an explicit relationship between a <text>child of <group> and its corresponding image set? The use case given in the Guidelines talks about recto and verso. If the answer to my question is ‘yes’, it might be a good idea to mention a use case of this type so that it becomes apparent to naïve users like myself to see right away that <surfaceGrp> can be used for any number of purposes ranging from the micro structure of a page (or even part of it) to the macrostructure of works and volumes.  

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: a question about surfaceGrp

James Cummings-5


Martin,


Sure, if I wanted to be explicit in my example I might use @corresp as you suggest pointing between the two. I tend to just use unspecified loose correlation by ID numbers myself. So if I have Volpone001-facs and Volpone001-text I'd document that in the project notes and write the processing to assume that every $ID-text had a corresponding $ID-facs or something similar to that.  But actually pointing at it with corresp would be much clearer (and also enables the ability for you to keep facsimiles and texts in separate documents, at separate URIs if you wanted to be all distributed about it).


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 Martin Mueller <[hidden email]>
Sent: 18 March 2018 03:58:52
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: a question about surfaceGrp
 

Thank you, James.  What you suggest was actually my first thought, but then I thought it couldn’t possibly be that simple. So you have a sequence of facsimile elements, each of them mapped to a text child of group through some explicit linking, [hidden email].  If you want to treat the text as separate documents (Volpone, Catiline etc. in the Jonson folio),  you just combine the relevant facsimile with the relevant and do something about the header.

 

As long as there is some explicit link between the facsimile and corresponding text elements, the use of surfaceGrp doesn’t really buy you anything. Or does it?

 

From: James Cummings <[hidden email]>
Date: Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 10:48 PM
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>, Martin Mueller <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: a question about surfaceGrp

 

Hi Martin,

 

If I'm understanding correctly, you wanting to group surfaces relating to a single text, why not just repeat <facsimile>, one corresponding to each <text>? If it is that you want to group sets of facsimile elements (for each <group>) then I don't think it is worth the hassle personally. 

 

I'd just do something like: 

====

<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">

  <teiHeader>...</teiHeader

   <facsimile xml:id="facs1">

      <surface xml:id="facs1-p1"></surface>

   </facsimile>

   <facsimile xml:id="facs2">

      <surface xml:id="facs2-p1"></surface>

   </facsimile>

   <facsimile xml:id="facs3">

      <surface xml:id="facs3-p1"></surface>

   </facsimile>

  <text>

     <group>

        <text xml:id="text1">

           <body><p/></body>

        </text>

        <text xml:id="text2">

           <body><p/></body>

        </text>

     </group>

  </text>

   <text xml:id="text3">

      <body><p/></body>

   </text>

</TEI>

=====

 

But I may be misunderstanding your need?

 

 

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 Martin Mueller <[hidden email]>
Sent: 17 March 2018 23:58:08
To: [hidden email]
Subject: a question about surfaceGrp

 

Is there a good way of grouping <facsimile> elements so that each <text> childe of a <group> element  has its own <facsimile> section?

 

I have the following use case in mind.  In our EarlyPrint project we provide enriched versions of TCP texts, some of them with <facsimile> elements that map to image sets currently in the Internet Archive.  You can find examples at https://texts.earlyprint.org.

 

Some TCP texts use the <group> element. Typical examples are the Ben Jonson folio (A04632) or the three volumes of Hakluyt (A02495).  We have mounted these texts on our site, but we also make them available for downloading so that folks can use them for their various projects.  There are reasons why one would want to keep all the texts of the group together. There are also reasons why you would want to split them. We split the Jonson plays because the predecessor of this site was a drama site. A user who waits for the very long three volumes of Hakluyt to load into eXist might have preferred a decision to split the text into volumes. There is the additional factor that the Internet Archive has images for the first two volumes, but not the third. And so on.

 

So it would be nice to have a solution that lets you split or combine texts with minimal effort. If the facsimile section is one undifferentiated stream of surface children from 1 to more than 1000, it takes some (and probably manual) effort to figure out the start and end points of surfaces for each <text> element.

 

Is <surfaceGrp>  an appropriate element for establishing an explicit relationship between a <text>child of <group> and its corresponding image set? The use case given in the Guidelines talks about recto and verso. If the answer to my question is ‘yes’, it might be a good idea to mention a use case of this type so that it becomes apparent to naïve users like myself to see right away that <surfaceGrp> can be used for any number of purposes ranging from the micro structure of a page (or even part of it) to the macrostructure of works and volumes.  

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: a question about surfaceGrp

Lou Burnard-6
Or why not use @facs ?

On 18/03/18 04:33, James Cummings wrote:


Martin,


Sure, if I wanted to be explicit in my example I might use @corresp as you suggest pointing between the two. I tend to just use unspecified loose correlation by ID numbers myself. So if I have Volpone001-facs and Volpone001-text I'd document that in the project notes and write the processing to assume that every $ID-text had a corresponding $ID-facs or something similar to that.  But actually pointing at it with corresp would be much clearer (and also enables the ability for you to keep facsimiles and texts in separate documents, at separate URIs if you wanted to be all distributed about it).


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 Martin Mueller [hidden email]
Sent: 18 March 2018 03:58:52
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: a question about surfaceGrp
 

Thank you, James.  What you suggest was actually my first thought, but then I thought it couldn’t possibly be that simple. So you have a sequence of facsimile elements, each of them mapped to a text child of group through some explicit linking, [hidden email].  If you want to treat the text as separate documents (Volpone, Catiline etc. in the Jonson folio),  you just combine the relevant facsimile with the relevant and do something about the header.

 

As long as there is some explicit link between the facsimile and corresponding text elements, the use of surfaceGrp doesn’t really buy you anything. Or does it?

 

From: James Cummings [hidden email]
Date: Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 10:48 PM
To: [hidden email] [hidden email], Martin Mueller [hidden email]
Subject: Re: a question about surfaceGrp

 

Hi Martin,

 

If I'm understanding correctly, you wanting to group surfaces relating to a single text, why not just repeat <facsimile>, one corresponding to each <text>? If it is that you want to group sets of facsimile elements (for each <group>) then I don't think it is worth the hassle personally. 

 

I'd just do something like: 

====

  <teiHeader>...</teiHeader

   <facsimile xml:id="facs1">

      <surface xml:id="facs1-p1"></surface>

   </facsimile>

   <facsimile xml:id="facs2">

      <surface xml:id="facs2-p1"></surface>

   </facsimile>

   <facsimile xml:id="facs3">

      <surface xml:id="facs3-p1"></surface>

   </facsimile>

  <text>

     <group>

        <text xml:id="text1">

           <body><p/></body>

        </text>

        <text xml:id="text2">

           <body><p/></body>

        </text>

     </group>

  </text>

   <text xml:id="text3">

      <body><p/></body>

   </text>

</TEI>

=====

 

But I may be misunderstanding your need?

 

 

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 Martin Mueller [hidden email]
Sent: 17 March 2018 23:58:08
To: [hidden email]
Subject: a question about surfaceGrp

 

Is there a good way of grouping <facsimile> elements so that each <text> childe of a <group> element  has its own <facsimile> section?

 

I have the following use case in mind.  In our EarlyPrint project we provide enriched versions of TCP texts, some of them with <facsimile> elements that map to image sets currently in the Internet Archive.  You can find examples at https://texts.earlyprint.org.

 

Some TCP texts use the <group> element. Typical examples are the Ben Jonson folio (A04632) or the three volumes of Hakluyt (A02495).  We have mounted these texts on our site, but we also make them available for downloading so that folks can use them for their various projects.  There are reasons why one would want to keep all the texts of the group together. There are also reasons why you would want to split them. We split the Jonson plays because the predecessor of this site was a drama site. A user who waits for the very long three volumes of Hakluyt to load into eXist might have preferred a decision to split the text into volumes. There is the additional factor that the Internet Archive has images for the first two volumes, but not the third. And so on.

 

So it would be nice to have a solution that lets you split or combine texts with minimal effort. If the facsimile section is one undifferentiated stream of surface children from 1 to more than 1000, it takes some (and probably manual) effort to figure out the start and end points of surfaces for each <text> element.

 

Is <surfaceGrp>  an appropriate element for establishing an explicit relationship between a <text>child of <group> and its corresponding image set? The use case given in the Guidelines talks about recto and verso. If the answer to my question is ‘yes’, it might be a good idea to mention a use case of this type so that it becomes apparent to naïve users like myself to see right away that <surfaceGrp> can be used for any number of purposes ranging from the micro structure of a page (or even part of it) to the macrostructure of works and volumes.  

 


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: a question about surfaceGrp

Martin Mueller

Do you mean not using <facsimile> at all, so that instead of  an entry in <facsimile>

 

<surface xml:id="A04632_05-191-a-im" corresp="#191">
    <graphic url="https://iiif.archivelab.org/iiif/workesofbeniamin00jons$373"/>
   </surface>

you just have

<pb xml:id="A04632_05-191-a" facs= “https://iiif.archivelab.org/iiif/workesofbeniamin00jons$373”/>

 

What would be the downsides of this admittedly simple solution?

 

 

 

 

From: "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list" <[hidden email]> on behalf of Lou Burnard <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: Lou Burnard <[hidden email]>
Date: Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 5:20 AM
To: "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: a question about surfaceGrp

 

 

Martin,

 

Sure, if I wanted to be explicit in my example I might use @corresp as you suggest pointing between the two. I tend to just use unspecified loose correlation by ID numbers myself. So if I have Volpone001-facs and Volpone001-text I'd document that in the project notes and write the processing to assume that every $ID-text had a corresponding $ID-facs or something similar to that.  But actually pointing at it with corresp would be much clearer (and also enables the ability for you to keep facsimiles and texts in separate documents, at separate URIs if you wanted to be all distributed about it).

 

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 Martin Mueller [hidden email]
Sent: 18 March 2018 03:58:52
To:
[hidden email]
Subject: Re: a question about surfaceGrp

 

Thank you, James.  What you suggest was actually my first thought, but then I thought it couldn’t possibly be that simple. So you have a sequence of facsimile elements, each of them mapped to a text child of group through some explicit linking, [hidden email].  If you want to treat the text as separate documents (Volpone, Catiline etc. in the Jonson folio),  you just combine the relevant facsimile with the relevant and do something about the header.

 

As long as there is some explicit link between the facsimile and corresponding text elements, the use of surfaceGrp doesn’t really buy you anything. Or does it?

 

From: James Cummings [hidden email]
Date: Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 10:48 PM
To:
[hidden email] [hidden email], Martin Mueller [hidden email]
Subject: Re: a question about surfaceGrp

 

Hi Martin,

 

If I'm understanding correctly, you wanting to group surfaces relating to a single text, why not just repeat <facsimile>, one corresponding to each <text>? If it is that you want to group sets of facsimile elements (for each <group>) then I don't think it is worth the hassle personally. 

 

I'd just do something like: 

====

  <teiHeader>...</teiHeader

   <facsimile xml:id="facs1">

      <surface xml:id="facs1-p1"></surface>

   </facsimile>

   <facsimile xml:id="facs2">

      <surface xml:id="facs2-p1"></surface>

   </facsimile>

   <facsimile xml:id="facs3">

      <surface xml:id="facs3-p1"></surface>

   </facsimile>

  <text>

     <group>

        <text xml:id="text1">

           <body><p/></body>

        </text>

        <text xml:id="text2">

           <body><p/></body>

        </text>

     </group>

  </text>

   <text xml:id="text3">

      <body><p/></body>

   </text>

</TEI>

=====

 

But I may be misunderstanding your need?

 

 

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 Martin Mueller [hidden email]
Sent: 17 March 2018 23:58:08
To:
[hidden email]
Subject: a question about surfaceGrp

 

Is there a good way of grouping <facsimile> elements so that each <text> childe of a <group> element  has its own <facsimile> section?

 

I have the following use case in mind.  In our EarlyPrint project we provide enriched versions of TCP texts, some of them with <facsimile> elements that map to image sets currently in the Internet Archive.  You can find examples at https://texts.earlyprint.org.

 

Some TCP texts use the <group> element. Typical examples are the Ben Jonson folio (A04632) or the three volumes of Hakluyt (A02495).  We have mounted these texts on our site, but we also make them available for downloading so that folks can use them for their various projects.  There are reasons why one would want to keep all the texts of the group together. There are also reasons why you would want to split them. We split the Jonson plays because the predecessor of this site was a drama site. A user who waits for the very long three volumes of Hakluyt to load into eXist might have preferred a decision to split the text into volumes. There is the additional factor that the Internet Archive has images for the first two volumes, but not the third. And so on.

 

So it would be nice to have a solution that lets you split or combine texts with minimal effort. If the facsimile section is one undifferentiated stream of surface children from 1 to more than 1000, it takes some (and probably manual) effort to figure out the start and end points of surfaces for each <text> element.

 

Is <surfaceGrp>  an appropriate element for establishing an explicit relationship between a <text>child of <group> and its corresponding image set? The use case given in the Guidelines talks about recto and verso. If the answer to my question is ‘yes’, it might be a good idea to mention a use case of this type so that it becomes apparent to naïve users like myself to see right away that <surfaceGrp> can be used for any number of purposes ranging from the micro structure of a page (or even part of it) to the macrostructure of works and volumes.  

 

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: a question about surfaceGrp

Marjorie Burghart-2
Hi,
The major downside is that you can't have multiple image representations for the same page. Which you may or may not need.
Marjorie

----- Mail d'origine -----
De: Martin Mueller <[hidden email]>
À: [hidden email]
Envoyé: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 16:28:23 +0100 (CET)
Objet: Re: a question about surfaceGrp

Do you mean not using <facsimile> at all, so that instead of  an entry in <facsimile>


<surface xml:id="A04632_05-191-a-im" corresp="#191">
    <graphic url="https://iiif.archivelab.org/iiif/workesofbeniamin00jons$373"/>
   </surface>
you just have

<pb xml:id="A04632_05-191-a" facs= “https://iiif.archivelab.org/iiif/workesofbeniamin00jons$373”/>



What would be the downsides of this admittedly simple solution?






From: "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list" <[hidden email]> on behalf of Lou Burnard <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: Lou Burnard <[hidden email]>
Date: Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 5:20 AM
To: "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: a question about surfaceGrp

Or why not use @facs ?

On 18/03/18 04:33, James Cummings wrote:



Martin,



Sure, if I wanted to be explicit in my example I might use @corresp as you suggest pointing between the two. I tend to just use unspecified loose correlation by ID numbers myself. So if I have Volpone001-facs and Volpone001-text I'd document that in the project notes and write the processing to assume that every $ID-text had a corresponding $ID-facs or something similar to that.  But actually pointing at it with corresp would be much clearer (and also enables the ability for you to keep facsimiles and texts in separate documents, at separate URIs if you wanted to be all distributed about it).



Best wishes,

James



--

Dr James Cummings, [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>

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

________________________________
From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list <[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]> on behalf of Martin Mueller <[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>
Sent: 18 March 2018 03:58:52
To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: a question about surfaceGrp


Thank you, James.  What you suggest was actually my first thought, but then I thought it couldn’t possibly be that simple. So you have a sequence of facsimile elements, each of them mapped to a text child of group through some explicit linking, e.g.@corresp<mailto:e.g.@corresp>.  If you want to treat the text as separate documents (Volpone, Catiline etc. in the Jonson folio),  you just combine the relevant facsimile with the relevant and do something about the header.



As long as there is some explicit link between the facsimile and corresponding text elements, the use of surfaceGrp doesn’t really buy you anything. Or does it?



From: James Cummings <[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>
Date: Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 10:48 PM
To: "[hidden email]"<mailto:[hidden email]> <[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>, Martin Mueller <[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: a question about surfaceGrp



Hi Martin,



If I'm understanding correctly, you wanting to group surfaces relating to a single text, why not just repeat <facsimile>, one corresponding to each <text>? If it is that you want to group sets of facsimile elements (for each <group>) then I don't think it is worth the hassle personally.



I'd just do something like:

====

<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.tei-2Dc.org_ns_1.0&d=DwMF-g&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=rG8zxOdssqSzDRz4x1GLlmLOW60xyVXydxwnJZpkxbk&m=g-ifwmZiRsRES74OU37DgtBfdIT5SrSRfsDYc6v766Q&s=avUZswyXMkwB4xZSe0MfrU8yjbWhQZv2XeXLtgbm2po&e=>>

  <teiHeader>...</teiHeader

   <facsimile xml:id="facs1">

      <surface xml:id="facs1-p1"></surface>

   </facsimile>

   <facsimile xml:id="facs2">

      <surface xml:id="facs2-p1"></surface>

   </facsimile>

   <facsimile xml:id="facs3">

      <surface xml:id="facs3-p1"></surface>

   </facsimile>

  <text>

     <group>

        <text xml:id="text1">

           <body><p/></body>

        </text>

        <text xml:id="text2">

           <body><p/></body>

        </text>

     </group>

  </text>

   <text xml:id="text3">

      <body><p/></body>

   </text>

</TEI>

=====



But I may be misunderstanding your need?





Best wishes,

James



--

Dr James Cummings, [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>

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

________________________________

From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list <[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]> on behalf of Martin Mueller <[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>
Sent: 17 March 2018 23:58:08
To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
Subject: a question about surfaceGrp



Is there a good way of grouping <facsimile> elements so that each <text> childe of a <group> element  has its own <facsimile> section?



I have the following use case in mind.  In our EarlyPrint project we provide enriched versions of TCP texts, some of them with <facsimile> elements that map to image sets currently in the Internet Archive.  You can find examples at https://texts.earlyprint.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__texts.earlyprint.org&d=DwMF-g&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=rG8zxOdssqSzDRz4x1GLlmLOW60xyVXydxwnJZpkxbk&m=Hvk3aQiOIqvI5Y7BtUr1tc3aIAKBOwhRiAplVjNt-f4&s=EPZqoSmc6p80fqrnEKJui8nNA_5f7UQ7LH4JABKbMmY&e=>.



Some TCP texts use the <group> element. Typical examples are the Ben Jonson folio (A04632) or the three volumes of Hakluyt (A02495).  We have mounted these texts on our site, but we also make them available for downloading so that folks can use them for their various projects.  There are reasons why one would want to keep all the texts of the group together. There are also reasons why you would want to split them. We split the Jonson plays because the predecessor of this site was a drama site. A user who waits for the very long three volumes of Hakluyt to load into eXist might have preferred a decision to split the text into volumes. There is the additional factor that the Internet Archive has images for the first two volumes, but not the third. And so on.



So it would be nice to have a solution that lets you split or combine texts with minimal effort. If the facsimile section is one undifferentiated stream of surface children from 1 to more than 1000, it takes some (and probably manual) effort to figure out the start and end points of surfaces for each <text> element.



Is <surfaceGrp>  an appropriate element for establishing an explicit relationship between a <text>child of <group> and its corresponding image set? The use case given in the Guidelines talks about recto and verso. If the answer to my question is ‘yes’, it might be a good idea to mention a use case of this type so that it becomes apparent to naïve users like myself to see right away that <surfaceGrp> can be used for any number of purposes ranging from the micro structure of a page (or even part of it) to the macrostructure of works and volumes.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: a question about surfaceGrp

Lou Burnard-6
In reply to this post by Martin Mueller
No, I meant simply that you could use @facs to associate the whole of a specific transcription (a <text>)  with a specific <facsimile> element, rather than using @corresp.

 On 18/03/18 15:28, Martin Mueller wrote:

Do you mean not using <facsimile> at all, so that instead of  an entry in <facsimile>

 

<surface xml:id="A04632_05-191-a-im" corresp="#191">
    <graphic url="https://iiif.archivelab.org/iiif/workesofbeniamin00jons$373"/>
   </surface>

you just have

<pb xml:id="A04632_05-191-a" facs= “https://iiif.archivelab.org/iiif/workesofbeniamin00jons$373”/>

 

What would be the downsides of this admittedly simple solution?

 

 

 

 

From: "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list" [hidden email] on behalf of Lou Burnard [hidden email]
Reply-To: Lou Burnard [hidden email]
Date: Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 5:20 AM
To: "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list" [hidden email]
Subject: Re: a question about surfaceGrp

 

 

Martin,

 

Sure, if I wanted to be explicit in my example I might use @corresp as you suggest pointing between the two. I tend to just use unspecified loose correlation by ID numbers myself. So if I have Volpone001-facs and Volpone001-text I'd document that in the project notes and write the processing to assume that every $ID-text had a corresponding $ID-facs or something similar to that.  But actually pointing at it with corresp would be much clearer (and also enables the ability for you to keep facsimiles and texts in separate documents, at separate URIs if you wanted to be all distributed about it).

 

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 Martin Mueller [hidden email]
Sent: 18 March 2018 03:58:52
To:
[hidden email]
Subject: Re: a question about surfaceGrp

 

Thank you, James.  What you suggest was actually my first thought, but then I thought it couldn’t possibly be that simple. So you have a sequence of facsimile elements, each of them mapped to a text child of group through some explicit linking, [hidden email].  If you want to treat the text as separate documents (Volpone, Catiline etc. in the Jonson folio),  you just combine the relevant facsimile with the relevant and do something about the header.

 

As long as there is some explicit link between the facsimile and corresponding text elements, the use of surfaceGrp doesn’t really buy you anything. Or does it?

 

From: James Cummings [hidden email]
Date: Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 10:48 PM
To:
[hidden email] [hidden email], Martin Mueller [hidden email]
Subject: Re: a question about surfaceGrp

 

Hi Martin,

 

If I'm understanding correctly, you wanting to group surfaces relating to a single text, why not just repeat <facsimile>, one corresponding to each <text>? If it is that you want to group sets of facsimile elements (for each <group>) then I don't think it is worth the hassle personally. 

 

I'd just do something like: 

====

  <teiHeader>...</teiHeader

   <facsimile xml:id="facs1">

      <surface xml:id="facs1-p1"></surface>

   </facsimile>

   <facsimile xml:id="facs2">

      <surface xml:id="facs2-p1"></surface>

   </facsimile>

   <facsimile xml:id="facs3">

      <surface xml:id="facs3-p1"></surface>

   </facsimile>

  <text>

     <group>

        <text xml:id="text1">

           <body><p/></body>

        </text>

        <text xml:id="text2">

           <body><p/></body>

        </text>

     </group>

  </text>

   <text xml:id="text3">

      <body><p/></body>

   </text>

</TEI>

=====

 

But I may be misunderstanding your need?

 

 

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 Martin Mueller [hidden email]
Sent: 17 March 2018 23:58:08
To:
[hidden email]
Subject: a question about surfaceGrp

 

Is there a good way of grouping <facsimile> elements so that each <text> childe of a <group> element  has its own <facsimile> section?

 

I have the following use case in mind.  In our EarlyPrint project we provide enriched versions of TCP texts, some of them with <facsimile> elements that map to image sets currently in the Internet Archive.  You can find examples at https://texts.earlyprint.org.

 

Some TCP texts use the <group> element. Typical examples are the Ben Jonson folio (A04632) or the three volumes of Hakluyt (A02495).  We have mounted these texts on our site, but we also make them available for downloading so that folks can use them for their various projects.  There are reasons why one would want to keep all the texts of the group together. There are also reasons why you would want to split them. We split the Jonson plays because the predecessor of this site was a drama site. A user who waits for the very long three volumes of Hakluyt to load into eXist might have preferred a decision to split the text into volumes. There is the additional factor that the Internet Archive has images for the first two volumes, but not the third. And so on.

 

So it would be nice to have a solution that lets you split or combine texts with minimal effort. If the facsimile section is one undifferentiated stream of surface children from 1 to more than 1000, it takes some (and probably manual) effort to figure out the start and end points of surfaces for each <text> element.

 

Is <surfaceGrp>  an appropriate element for establishing an explicit relationship between a <text>child of <group> and its corresponding image set? The use case given in the Guidelines talks about recto and verso. If the answer to my question is ‘yes’, it might be a good idea to mention a use case of this type so that it becomes apparent to naïve users like myself to see right away that <surfaceGrp> can be used for any number of purposes ranging from the micro structure of a page (or even part of it) to the macrostructure of works and volumes.  

 

 


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: a question about surfaceGrp

James Cummings-5


Hi Lou,


I think the reason I didn't suggest using @facs is that in my mind that points to a surface or zone rather than a facsimile which will contain many surfaces. Though I recognise that using it to point to facsimile from text might be very similar... I certainly wouldn't think it wrong to do so. I just tend to think of @facs pointing to the element which itself has coordinates and/or a child graphic. But yes, Martin could equally use @facs to point between text and facsimile elements.


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 Lou Burnard <[hidden email]>
Sent: 18 March 2018 17:35:06
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: a question about surfaceGrp
 
No, I meant simply that you could use @facs to associate the whole of a specific transcription (a <text>)  with a specific <facsimile> element, rather than using @corresp.

 On 18/03/18 15:28, Martin Mueller wrote:

Do you mean not using <facsimile> at all, so that instead of  an entry in <facsimile>

 

<surface xml:id="A04632_05-191-a-im" corresp="#191">
    <graphic url="https://iiif.archivelab.org/iiif/workesofbeniamin00jons$373"/>
   </surface>

you just have

<pb xml:id="A04632_05-191-a" facs= “https://iiif.archivelab.org/iiif/workesofbeniamin00jons$373”/>

 

What would be the downsides of this admittedly simple solution?

 

 

 

 

From: "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list" [hidden email] on behalf of Lou Burnard [hidden email]
Reply-To: Lou Burnard [hidden email]
Date: Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 5:20 AM
To: "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list" [hidden email]
Subject: Re: a question about surfaceGrp

 

 

Martin,

 

Sure, if I wanted to be explicit in my example I might use @corresp as you suggest pointing between the two. I tend to just use unspecified loose correlation by ID numbers myself. So if I have Volpone001-facs and Volpone001-text I'd document that in the project notes and write the processing to assume that every $ID-text had a corresponding $ID-facs or something similar to that.  But actually pointing at it with corresp would be much clearer (and also enables the ability for you to keep facsimiles and texts in separate documents, at separate URIs if you wanted to be all distributed about it).

 

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 Martin Mueller [hidden email]
Sent: 18 March 2018 03:58:52
To:
[hidden email]
Subject: Re: a question about surfaceGrp

 

Thank you, James.  What you suggest was actually my first thought, but then I thought it couldn’t possibly be that simple. So you have a sequence of facsimile elements, each of them mapped to a text child of group through some explicit linking, [hidden email].  If you want to treat the text as separate documents (Volpone, Catiline etc. in the Jonson folio),  you just combine the relevant facsimile with the relevant and do something about the header.

 

As long as there is some explicit link between the facsimile and corresponding text elements, the use of surfaceGrp doesn’t really buy you anything. Or does it?

 

From: James Cummings [hidden email]
Date: Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 10:48 PM
To:
[hidden email] [hidden email], Martin Mueller [hidden email]
Subject: Re: a question about surfaceGrp

 

Hi Martin,

 

If I'm understanding correctly, you wanting to group surfaces relating to a single text, why not just repeat <facsimile>, one corresponding to each <text>? If it is that you want to group sets of facsimile elements (for each <group>) then I don't think it is worth the hassle personally. 

 

I'd just do something like: 

====

  <teiHeader>...</teiHeader

   <facsimile xml:id="facs1">

      <surface xml:id="facs1-p1"></surface>

   </facsimile>

   <facsimile xml:id="facs2">

      <surface xml:id="facs2-p1"></surface>

   </facsimile>

   <facsimile xml:id="facs3">

      <surface xml:id="facs3-p1"></surface>

   </facsimile>

  <text>

     <group>

        <text xml:id="text1">

           <body><p/></body>

        </text>

        <text xml:id="text2">

           <body><p/></body>

        </text>

     </group>

  </text>

   <text xml:id="text3">

      <body><p/></body>

   </text>

</TEI>

=====

 

But I may be misunderstanding your need?

 

 

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 Martin Mueller [hidden email]
Sent: 17 March 2018 23:58:08
To:
[hidden email]
Subject: a question about surfaceGrp

 

Is there a good way of grouping <facsimile> elements so that each <text> childe of a <group> element  has its own <facsimile> section?

 

I have the following use case in mind.  In our EarlyPrint project we provide enriched versions of TCP texts, some of them with <facsimile> elements that map to image sets currently in the Internet Archive.  You can find examples at https://texts.earlyprint.org.

 

Some TCP texts use the <group> element. Typical examples are the Ben Jonson folio (A04632) or the three volumes of Hakluyt (A02495).  We have mounted these texts on our site, but we also make them available for downloading so that folks can use them for their various projects.  There are reasons why one would want to keep all the texts of the group together. There are also reasons why you would want to split them. We split the Jonson plays because the predecessor of this site was a drama site. A user who waits for the very long three volumes of Hakluyt to load into eXist might have preferred a decision to split the text into volumes. There is the additional factor that the Internet Archive has images for the first two volumes, but not the third. And so on.

 

So it would be nice to have a solution that lets you split or combine texts with minimal effort. If the facsimile section is one undifferentiated stream of surface children from 1 to more than 1000, it takes some (and probably manual) effort to figure out the start and end points of surfaces for each <text> element.

 

Is <surfaceGrp>  an appropriate element for establishing an explicit relationship between a <text>child of <group> and its corresponding image set? The use case given in the Guidelines talks about recto and verso. If the answer to my question is ‘yes’, it might be a good idea to mention a use case of this type so that it becomes apparent to naïve users like myself to see right away that <surfaceGrp> can be used for any number of purposes ranging from the micro structure of a page (or even part of it) to the macrostructure of works and volumes.  

 

 


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: a question about surfaceGrp

Martin Mueller

I think I’ll go with @corresp because it’s a two-way link.

 

From: "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list" <[hidden email]> on behalf of James Cummings <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: James Cummings <[hidden email]>
Date: Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 2:07 PM
To: "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: a question about surfaceGrp

 

 

Hi Lou,

 

I think the reason I didn't suggest using @facs is that in my mind that points to a surface or zone rather than a facsimile which will contain many surfaces. Though I recognise that using it to point to facsimile from text might be very similar... I certainly wouldn't think it wrong to do so. I just tend to think of @facs pointing to the element which itself has coordinates and/or a child graphic. But yes, Martin could equally use @facs to point between text and facsimile elements.

 

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 Lou Burnard <[hidden email]>
Sent: 18 March 2018 17:35:06
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: a question about surfaceGrp

 

No, I meant simply that you could use @facs to associate the whole of a specific transcription (a <text>)  with a specific <facsimile> element, rather than using @corresp.

 On 18/03/18 15:28, Martin Mueller wrote:

Do you mean not using <facsimile> at all, so that instead of  an entry in <facsimile>

 

<surface xml:id="A04632_05-191-a-im" corresp="#191">
    <graphic url=
"https://iiif.archivelab.org/iiif/workesofbeniamin00jons$373"/>
   </surface>

you just have

<pb xml:id="A04632_05-191-a" facs= “https://iiif.archivelab.org/iiif/workesofbeniamin00jons$373”/>

 

What would be the downsides of this admittedly simple solution?

 

 

 

 

From: "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list" [hidden email] on behalf of Lou Burnard [hidden email]
Reply-To: Lou Burnard
[hidden email]
Date: Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 5:20 AM
To: "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list"
[hidden email]
Subject: Re: a question about surfaceGrp

 

 

Martin,

 

Sure, if I wanted to be explicit in my example I might use @corresp as you suggest pointing between the two. I tend to just use unspecified loose correlation by ID numbers myself. So if I have Volpone001-facs and Volpone001-text I'd document that in the project notes and write the processing to assume that every $ID-text had a corresponding $ID-facs or something similar to that.  But actually pointing at it with corresp would be much clearer (and also enables the ability for you to keep facsimiles and texts in separate documents, at separate URIs if you wanted to be all distributed about it).

 

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 Martin Mueller [hidden email]
Sent: 18 March 2018 03:58:52
To:
[hidden email]
Subject: Re: a question about surfaceGrp

 

Thank you, James.  What you suggest was actually my first thought, but then I thought it couldn’t possibly be that simple. So you have a sequence of facsimile elements, each of them mapped to a text child of group through some explicit linking, [hidden email].  If you want to treat the text as separate documents (Volpone, Catiline etc. in the Jonson folio),  you just combine the relevant facsimile with the relevant and do something about the header.

 

As long as there is some explicit link between the facsimile and corresponding text elements, the use of surfaceGrp doesn’t really buy you anything. Or does it?

 

From: James Cummings [hidden email]
Date: Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 10:48 PM
To:
[hidden email] [hidden email], Martin Mueller [hidden email]
Subject: Re: a question about surfaceGrp

 

Hi Martin,

 

If I'm understanding correctly, you wanting to group surfaces relating to a single text, why not just repeat <facsimile>, one corresponding to each <text>? If it is that you want to group sets of facsimile elements (for each <group>) then I don't think it is worth the hassle personally. 

 

I'd just do something like: 

====

  <teiHeader>...</teiHeader

   <facsimile xml:id="facs1">

      <surface xml:id="facs1-p1"></surface>

   </facsimile>

   <facsimile xml:id="facs2">

      <surface xml:id="facs2-p1"></surface>

   </facsimile>

   <facsimile xml:id="facs3">

      <surface xml:id="facs3-p1"></surface>

   </facsimile>

  <text>

     <group>

        <text xml:id="text1">

           <body><p/></body>

        </text>

        <text xml:id="text2">

           <body><p/></body>

        </text>

     </group>

  </text>

   <text xml:id="text3">

      <body><p/></body>

   </text>

</TEI>

=====

 

But I may be misunderstanding your need?

 

 

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 Martin Mueller [hidden email]
Sent: 17 March 2018 23:58:08
To:
[hidden email]
Subject: a question about surfaceGrp

 

Is there a good way of grouping <facsimile> elements so that each <text> childe of a <group> element  has its own <facsimile> section?

 

I have the following use case in mind.  In our EarlyPrint project we provide enriched versions of TCP texts, some of them with <facsimile> elements that map to image sets currently in the Internet Archive.  You can find examples at https://texts.earlyprint.org.

 

Some TCP texts use the <group> element. Typical examples are the Ben Jonson folio (A04632) or the three volumes of Hakluyt (A02495).  We have mounted these texts on our site, but we also make them available for downloading so that folks can use them for their various projects.  There are reasons why one would want to keep all the texts of the group together. There are also reasons why you would want to split them. We split the Jonson plays because the predecessor of this site was a drama site. A user who waits for the very long three volumes of Hakluyt to load into eXist might have preferred a decision to split the text into volumes. There is the additional factor that the Internet Archive has images for the first two volumes, but not the third. And so on.

 

So it would be nice to have a solution that lets you split or combine texts with minimal effort. If the facsimile section is one undifferentiated stream of surface children from 1 to more than 1000, it takes some (and probably manual) effort to figure out the start and end points of surfaces for each <text> element.

 

Is <surfaceGrp>  an appropriate element for establishing an explicit relationship between a <text>child of <group> and its corresponding image set? The use case given in the Guidelines talks about recto and verso. If the answer to my question is ‘yes’, it might be a good idea to mention a use case of this type so that it becomes apparent to naïve users like myself to see right away that <surfaceGrp> can be used for any number of purposes ranging from the micro structure of a page (or even part of it) to the macrostructure of works and volumes.  

 

 

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: a question about surfaceGrp

Martin de la Iglesia-3
In reply to this post by Marjorie Burghart-2


Hi,
The major downside is that you can't have multiple image representations for the same page. Which you may or may not need.
Marjorie



Really? I thought that's why @facs accepts multiple values, so that e.g.

<pb xml:id="A04632_05-191-a" facs=“https://iiif.archivelab.org/iiif/workesofbeniamin00jons$373a https://iiif.archivelab.org/iiif/workesofbeniamin00jons$373b”/>

refers to two images representing the same page?


Martin

— 
Martin de la Iglesia
Kommentierte digitale Edition der Reise- und Sammlungsbeschreibungen Philipp Hainhofers (1578-1647)
Herzog August Bibliothek, Lessingplatz 1, 38304 Wolfenbüttel     Tel. +49 5331 808-125


----- Mail d'origine -----
De: Martin Mueller <[hidden email]>
À: [hidden email]
Envoyé: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 16:28:23 +0100 (CET)
Objet: Re: a question about surfaceGrp

Do you mean not using <facsimile> at all, so that instead of  an entry in <facsimile>


<surface xml:id="A04632_05-191-a-im" corresp="#191">
   <graphic url="https://iiif.archivelab.org/iiif/workesofbeniamin00jons$373"/>
  </surface>
you just have

<pb xml:id="A04632_05-191-a" facs= “https://iiif.archivelab.org/iiif/workesofbeniamin00jons$373”/>



What would be the downsides of this admittedly simple solution?






From: "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list" <[hidden email]> on behalf of Lou Burnard <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: Lou Burnard <[hidden email]>
Date: Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 5:20 AM
To: "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: a question about surfaceGrp

Or why not use @facs ?

On 18/03/18 04:33, James Cummings wrote:



Martin,



Sure, if I wanted to be explicit in my example I might use @corresp as you suggest pointing between the two. I tend to just use unspecified loose correlation by ID numbers myself. So if I have Volpone001-facs and Volpone001-text I'd document that in the project notes and write the processing to assume that every $ID-text had a corresponding $ID-facs or something similar to that.  But actually pointing at it with corresp would be much clearer (and also enables the ability for you to keep facsimiles and texts in separate documents, at separate URIs if you wanted to be all distributed about it).



Best wishes,

James



--

Dr James Cummings, [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>

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

________________________________
From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list <[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]> on behalf of Martin Mueller <[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>
Sent: 18 March 2018 03:58:52
To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: a question about surfaceGrp


Thank you, James.  What you suggest was actually my first thought, but then I thought it couldn’t possibly be that simple. So you have a sequence of facsimile elements, each of them mapped to a text child of group through some explicit linking, e.g.@corresp<mailto:e.g.@corresp>.  If you want to treat the text as separate documents (Volpone, Catiline etc. in the Jonson folio),  you just combine the relevant facsimile with the relevant and do something about the header.



As long as there is some explicit link between the facsimile and corresponding text elements, the use of surfaceGrp doesn’t really buy you anything. Or does it?



From: James Cummings <[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>
Date: Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 10:48 PM
To: "[hidden email]"<mailto:[hidden email]> <[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>, Martin Mueller <[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: a question about surfaceGrp



Hi Martin,



If I'm understanding correctly, you wanting to group surfaces relating to a single text, why not just repeat <facsimile>, one corresponding to each <text>? If it is that you want to group sets of facsimile elements (for each <group>) then I don't think it is worth the hassle personally.



I'd just do something like:

====

<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.tei-2Dc.org_ns_1.0&d=DwMF-g&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=rG8zxOdssqSzDRz4x1GLlmLOW60xyVXydxwnJZpkxbk&m=g-ifwmZiRsRES74OU37DgtBfdIT5SrSRfsDYc6v766Q&s=avUZswyXMkwB4xZSe0MfrU8yjbWhQZv2XeXLtgbm2po&e=>>

 <teiHeader>...</teiHeader

  <facsimile xml:id="facs1">

     <surface xml:id="facs1-p1"></surface>

  </facsimile>

  <facsimile xml:id="facs2">

     <surface xml:id="facs2-p1"></surface>

  </facsimile>

  <facsimile xml:id="facs3">

     <surface xml:id="facs3-p1"></surface>

  </facsimile>

 <text>

    <group>

       <text xml:id="text1">

          <body><p/></body>

       </text>

       <text xml:id="text2">

          <body><p/></body>

       </text>

    </group>

 </text>

  <text xml:id="text3">

     <body><p/></body>

  </text>

</TEI>

=====



But I may be misunderstanding your need?





Best wishes,

James



--

Dr James Cummings, [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>

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

________________________________

From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list <[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]> on behalf of Martin Mueller <[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>
Sent: 17 March 2018 23:58:08
To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
Subject: a question about surfaceGrp



Is there a good way of grouping <facsimile> elements so that each <text> childe of a <group> element  has its own <facsimile> section?



I have the following use case in mind.  In our EarlyPrint project we provide enriched versions of TCP texts, some of them with <facsimile> elements that map to image sets currently in the Internet Archive.  You can find examples at https://texts.earlyprint.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__texts.earlyprint.org&d=DwMF-g&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=rG8zxOdssqSzDRz4x1GLlmLOW60xyVXydxwnJZpkxbk&m=Hvk3aQiOIqvI5Y7BtUr1tc3aIAKBOwhRiAplVjNt-f4&s=EPZqoSmc6p80fqrnEKJui8nNA_5f7UQ7LH4JABKbMmY&e=>.



Some TCP texts use the <group> element. Typical examples are the Ben Jonson folio (A04632) or the three volumes of Hakluyt (A02495).  We have mounted these texts on our site, but we also make them available for downloading so that folks can use them for their various projects.  There are reasons why one would want to keep all the texts of the group together. There are also reasons why you would want to split them. We split the Jonson plays because the predecessor of this site was a drama site. A user who waits for the very long three volumes of Hakluyt to load into eXist might have preferred a decision to split the text into volumes. There is the additional factor that the Internet Archive has images for the first two volumes, but not the third. And so on.



So it would be nice to have a solution that lets you split or combine texts with minimal effort. If the facsimile section is one undifferentiated stream of surface children from 1 to more than 1000, it takes some (and probably manual) effort to figure out the start and end points of surfaces for each <text> element.



Is <surfaceGrp>  an appropriate element for establishing an explicit relationship between a <text>child of <group> and its corresponding image set? The use case given in the Guidelines talks about recto and verso. If the answer to my question is ‘yes’, it might be a good idea to mention a use case of this type so that it becomes apparent to naïve users like myself to see right away that <surfaceGrp> can be used for any number of purposes ranging from the micro structure of a page (or even part of it) to the macrostructure of works and volumes.