looking for a good way to mark up three different types of bibliographic relationships,

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

looking for a good way to mark up three different types of bibliographic relationships,

Conal Tuohy-3
Dear list, I am working as a consultant for scholars at the University of Sydney who are editing an edition of the manuscript notebooks of the Australian author Patrick White.

The editing workflow uses Microsoft Word for transcription, and Zotero for maintaining a bibliography of related texts. My role in the project has been to automate the conversion and integration of these two data sources into TEI XML. I am looking for suggestions for how we should TEI-encode a variety of bibliographic relationships in these manuscripts.

The manuscripts contain many pieces of text which relate to other published texts; in Microsoft Word these are captured using hyperlinks which refer to the related text using the URL of the bibliographic record on the Zotero website (e.g. <https://www.zotero.org/groups/300568/patrick_white_notebooks/items/itemKey/4JKX6FG9>), and use three different styles to represent the different types of relationship:

1) "quotedFrom" = a piece of text in the manuscript is a quotation from an existing source (White has copied out a lot of his favourite poetry, in particular)
2) "quotedIn" = a piece of text in the manuscript has been quoted in another critical work about Patrick White
3) "publishedIn" = a piece of text in the manuscript is a draft of a later published work by White himself.

The first case is the easiest, since it can be a <quote>. Usually, White does not explicitly cite these quotes, so rather than using <cit>, e.g.

<cit><bibl><!-- reference --></bibl><quote><!-- quoted text --></quote></cit>

... I would keep the bibliographic record in a listBibl in the teiHeader, and in the text I would encode it as:

<quote source="#bibl-123"><!-- quoted text --></quote>

The other two cases I find less obvious. They are a little unusual in that they encode relationships which are defined extraneously to the manuscript itself (i.e. by the later publication of works which relate to the manuscript).

One idea I had is to create <bibl> elements which describe the manuscript fragments themselves, and using @decls to link the fragments with their corresponding <bibl>, alongside <bibl> elements for the external texts, and then to capture the relationships between these <bibl> elements using <relatedItem>. e.g.

<!-- in the header -->
<listBibl>
   <bibl id="the-cockatoos">
      <title>The Cockatoos</title>
     <author>Patrick White</author>
   </bibl>
   <bibl id="the-cockatoos-fragment-1">
      <author>Patrick White</author>
      <relatedItem target="#the-cockatoos" type="publishedIn"><!-- or type="draftOf", or something similar -->
   </bibl>
</listBibl>

<!-- in the transcript -->
<floatingText decls="#the-cockatoos-fragment-1"><!-- fragmentary draft of the "The Cockatoos" --></floatingText>

Can anyone offer any criticism of this approach, or any other ideas?

Thank you!

Conal


--
@conal_tuohy
+61-466-324297