<choice> of pure alternates

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

<choice> of pure alternates

Martin Holmes
Hi all,

We're working on a linguistic MS in which sometimes two glyphs are
written, one above the other, with the intention that they're seen as
alternates -- just as you might mark variant spellings:

realize
realise

by writing s over z, making no judgement about preference. How would you
capture this? <choice> seems the right thing, but all its children have
explicit relationships -- one thing is a correction or a regularization
or an expansion of the other. How would you tag pure alternates?

Cheers,
Martin

--
-------------------------------------
Humanities Computing and Media Centre
University of Victoria
[hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [External] <choice> of pure alternates

De Tienne, Andre

Martin,

 

You could treat it as an alternate reading:

 

<seg xml:id="bslr1">realise</seg>

<add place="above" xml:id="altr1">realize</add>

<alt target="#bslr1" "#altr1" mode="excl" weights="0.5 0.5"/>

 

You could also have  mode="incl" instead of mode="excl".

(bslr= base line reading; altr = alternate reading)

 

André

 

-----------------------

André De Tienne, Ph.D.

Director and General Editor

Peirce Edition Project

Institute for American Thought

 

Professor of Philosophy

Department of Philosophy

 

Editor-in-chief, The American Journal of Semiotics

 

Indiana University School of Liberal Arts

Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis

902 W New York St

ES 0010

Indianapolis, IN 46202-5197

317-274-2033

IAT: 317-274-2173

adetienn(at)iupui.edu

www.peirce.iupui.edu/

liberalarts.iupui.edu/iat/

 

From: "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list" <[hidden email]> on behalf of Martin Holmes <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: Martin Holmes <[hidden email]>
Date: Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 6:34 PM
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: [External] <choice> of pure alternates

 

This message was sent from a non-IU address. Please exercise caution when clicking links or opening attachments from external sources.

-------

 

Hi all,

 

We're working on a linguistic MS in which sometimes two glyphs are

written, one above the other, with the intention that they're seen as

alternates -- just as you might mark variant spellings:

 

realize

realise

 

by writing s over z, making no judgement about preference. How would you

capture this? <choice> seems the right thing, but all its children have

explicit relationships -- one thing is a correction or a regularization

or an expansion of the other. How would you tag pure alternates?

 

Cheers,

Martin

 

--

-------------------------------------

Humanities Computing and Media Centre

University of Victoria

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [External] <choice> of pure alternates

Martin Holmes
HI André,

Since it's one letter, it would be:

reali<seg xml:id="bslr1">s<add place="above" xml:id="altr1">z</add></seg>e
<alt target="#bslr1" "#altr1" mode="excl" weights="0.5 0.5"/>

But there's a claim in there that the z was added; in this case it
wasn't. And I still think that <alt>, as it's defined and described in
the guidelines, is more to do with the transcriber's uncertainty about
the text. We don't have any uncertainty, we just have a convention that
the writer was using to illustrate that either both forms exist, and
either is OK.

Cheers,
Martin

On 2020-06-25 6:50 p.m., De Tienne, Andre wrote:

> Martin,
>
> You could treat it as an alternate reading:
>
> <seg xml:id="bslr1">realise</seg>
>
> <add place="above" xml:id="altr1">realize</add>
>
> <alt target="#bslr1" "#altr1" mode="excl" weights="0.5 0.5"/>
>
> You could also have  mode="incl" instead of mode="excl".
>
> (bslr= base line reading; altr = alternate reading)
>
> André
>
> -----------------------
>
> *André De Tienne, Ph.D.*
>
> Director and General Editor
>
> Peirce Edition Project
>
> Institute for American Thought
>
> Professor of Philosophy
>
> Department of Philosophy
>
> Editor-in-chief, /The American Journal of Semiotics/
>
> *Indiana University School of Liberal Arts*
>
> Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis
>
> 902 W New York St
>
> ES 0010
>
> Indianapolis, IN 46202-5197
>
> 317-274-2033
>
> IAT: 317-274-2173
>
> adetienn(at)iupui.edu
>
> www.peirce.iupui.edu/
>
> liberalarts.iupui.edu/iat/
>
> *From: *"TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list"
> <[hidden email]> on behalf of Martin Holmes <[hidden email]>
> *Reply-To: *Martin Holmes <[hidden email]>
> *Date: *Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 6:34 PM
> *To: *"[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
> *Subject: *[External] <choice> of pure alternates
>
> This message was sent from a non-IU address. Please exercise caution
> when clicking links or opening attachments from external sources.
>
> -------
>
> Hi all,
>
> We're working on a linguistic MS in which sometimes two glyphs are
>
> written, one above the other, with the intention that they're seen as
>
> alternates -- just as you might mark variant spellings:
>
> realize
>
> realise
>
> by writing s over z, making no judgement about preference. How would you
>
> capture this? <choice> seems the right thing, but all its children have
>
> explicit relationships -- one thing is a correction or a regularization
>
> or an expansion of the other. How would you tag pure alternates?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Martin
>
> --
>
> -------------------------------------
>
> Humanities Computing and Media Centre
>
> University of Victoria
>
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>

--
-------------------------------------
Humanities Computing and Media Centre
University of Victoria
[hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [External] <choice> of pure alternates

Kurz, Stephan
Hi Martin,

reading through the definition of <choice>, I doubt that this fits either, as it is not referring to the same point in a text.
Were you encoding a dictionary, this effect was covered by the <form type="variant"> element. Though we do not know much about the linguistic Ms, to me that seems a plausible candidate for what is _meant_, and depending on the nature of the Ms you could think about <form>.

On a loosely related side note: In German language research on Arno Schmidt as a literary writer that employed what you describe as a means of encoding alternatives, the term "Ramifikation" is used for this technique which is really easy to do on a mechanical typewriter, but rather complex to do properly in typesetting (cf. https://www.arno-schmidt-stiftung.de/content/Archiv/ZettelsTraum/ZT-Beispielheft.pdf, p. 9). The functional space of ramification for Schmidt is described there as "textual contraction, reading variant or for describing ambivalences".

Best wishes, Stephan

-----Original Message-----
From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Martin Holmes
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 5:12 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [External] <choice> of pure alternates

HI André,

Since it's one letter, it would be:

reali<seg xml:id="bslr1">s<add place="above" xml:id="altr1">z</add></seg>e
<alt target="#bslr1" "#altr1" mode="excl" weights="0.5 0.5"/>

But there's a claim in there that the z was added; in this case it
wasn't. And I still think that <alt>, as it's defined and described in
the guidelines, is more to do with the transcriber's uncertainty about
the text. We don't have any uncertainty, we just have a convention that
the writer was using to illustrate that either both forms exist, and
either is OK.

Cheers,
Martin

On 2020-06-25 6:50 p.m., De Tienne, Andre wrote:

> Martin,
>
> You could treat it as an alternate reading:
>
> <seg xml:id="bslr1">realise</seg>
>
> <add place="above" xml:id="altr1">realize</add>
>
> <alt target="#bslr1" "#altr1" mode="excl" weights="0.5 0.5"/>
>
> You could also have  mode="incl" instead of mode="excl".
>
> (bslr= base line reading; altr = alternate reading)
>
> André
>
> -----------------------
>
> *André De Tienne, Ph.D.*
>
> Director and General Editor
>
> Peirce Edition Project
>
> Institute for American Thought
>
> Professor of Philosophy
>
> Department of Philosophy
>
> Editor-in-chief, /The American Journal of Semiotics/
>
> *Indiana University School of Liberal Arts*
>
> Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis
>
> 902 W New York St
>
> ES 0010
>
> Indianapolis, IN 46202-5197
>
> 317-274-2033
>
> IAT: 317-274-2173
>
> adetienn(at)iupui.edu
>
> www.peirce.iupui.edu/
>
> liberalarts.iupui.edu/iat/
>
> *From: *"TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list"
> <[hidden email]> on behalf of Martin Holmes <[hidden email]>
> *Reply-To: *Martin Holmes <[hidden email]>
> *Date: *Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 6:34 PM
> *To: *"[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
> *Subject: *[External] <choice> of pure alternates
>
> This message was sent from a non-IU address. Please exercise caution
> when clicking links or opening attachments from external sources.
>
> -------
>
> Hi all,
>
> We're working on a linguistic MS in which sometimes two glyphs are
>
> written, one above the other, with the intention that they're seen as
>
> alternates -- just as you might mark variant spellings:
>
> realize
>
> realise
>
> by writing s over z, making no judgement about preference. How would you
>
> capture this? <choice> seems the right thing, but all its children have
>
> explicit relationships -- one thing is a correction or a regularization
>
> or an expansion of the other. How would you tag pure alternates?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Martin
>
> --
>
> -------------------------------------
>
> Humanities Computing and Media Centre
>
> University of Victoria
>
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>

--
-------------------------------------
Humanities Computing and Media Centre
University of Victoria
[hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [External] <choice> of pure alternates

Elena Pierazzo-3
Dear Martin,

In fact there is no element in the TEI to represent an alternative variant left as open by its author. In such cases, within the group that dealt with genetic editing and draft manuscripts, we recommended <alt/> even if it wasn’t 100% correct. It is also the way the people that dealt with Emily Dickinsons open readings did it [1].
So this issues keeps coming up and I suggest the Council take one of the following steps:

1. Enlarge the semantics of <alt/> and adding one of 2 examples of open readings
2. Invent a new element for it

Elena

[1]Lara Vetter, Jarom McDonald, "Witnessing Dickinson's Witnesses ». Lit. Linguistic Comput. 18(2): 151-165 (2003), https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/18.2.151

Le 26 juin 2020 à 09:30, Kurz, Stephan <[hidden email]> a écrit :

Hi Martin,

reading through the definition of <choice>, I doubt that this fits either, as it is not referring to the same point in a text.
Were you encoding a dictionary, this effect was covered by the <form type="variant"> element. Though we do not know much about the linguistic Ms, to me that seems a plausible candidate for what is _meant_, and depending on the nature of the Ms you could think about <form>.

On a loosely related side note: In German language research on Arno Schmidt as a literary writer that employed what you describe as a means of encoding alternatives, the term "Ramifikation" is used for this technique which is really easy to do on a mechanical typewriter, but rather complex to do properly in typesetting (cf. https://www.arno-schmidt-stiftung.de/content/Archiv/ZettelsTraum/ZT-Beispielheft.pdf, p. 9). The functional space of ramification for Schmidt is described there as "textual contraction, reading variant or for describing ambivalences".

Best wishes, Stephan

-----Original Message-----
From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Martin Holmes
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 5:12 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [External] <choice> of pure alternates

HI André,

Since it's one letter, it would be:

reali<seg xml:id="bslr1">s<add place="above" xml:id="altr1">z</add></seg>e
<alt target="#bslr1" "#altr1" mode="excl" weights="0.5 0.5"/>

But there's a claim in there that the z was added; in this case it
wasn't. And I still think that <alt>, as it's defined and described in
the guidelines, is more to do with the transcriber's uncertainty about
the text. We don't have any uncertainty, we just have a convention that
the writer was using to illustrate that either both forms exist, and
either is OK.

Cheers,
Martin

On 2020-06-25 6:50 p.m., De Tienne, Andre wrote:
Martin,

You could treat it as an alternate reading:

<seg xml:id="bslr1">realise</seg>

<add place="above" xml:id="altr1">realize</add>

<alt target="#bslr1" "#altr1" mode="excl" weights="0.5 0.5"/>

You could also have  mode="incl" instead of mode="excl".

(bslr= base line reading; altr = alternate reading)

André

-----------------------

*André De Tienne, Ph.D.*

Director and General Editor

Peirce Edition Project

Institute for American Thought

Professor of Philosophy

Department of Philosophy

Editor-in-chief, /The American Journal of Semiotics/

*Indiana University School of Liberal Arts*

Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis

902 W New York St

ES 0010

Indianapolis, IN 46202-5197

317-274-2033

IAT: 317-274-2173

adetienn(at)iupui.edu

www.peirce.iupui.edu/

liberalarts.iupui.edu/iat/

*From: *"TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list"
<[hidden email]> on behalf of Martin Holmes <[hidden email]>
*Reply-To: *Martin Holmes <[hidden email]>
*Date: *Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 6:34 PM
*To: *"[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
*Subject: *[External] <choice> of pure alternates

This message was sent from a non-IU address. Please exercise caution
when clicking links or opening attachments from external sources.

-------

Hi all,

We're working on a linguistic MS in which sometimes two glyphs are

written, one above the other, with the intention that they're seen as

alternates -- just as you might mark variant spellings:

realize

realise

by writing s over z, making no judgement about preference. How would you

capture this? <choice> seems the right thing, but all its children have

explicit relationships -- one thing is a correction or a regularization

or an expansion of the other. How would you tag pure alternates?

Cheers,

Martin

--

-------------------------------------

Humanities Computing and Media Centre

University of Victoria

[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>


--
-------------------------------------
Humanities Computing and Media Centre
University of Victoria
[hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: <choice> of pure alternates

Paul Schaffner
In reply to this post by Martin Holmes
Could you treat the compactly-expressed representation as a kind
of abbreviation?

"I don't think you
<choice><expan>realize</expan><expan>realise</expan></choice>
how simple this can be?"

pfs

ps How do people encode ordinary brevigraphs with ambiguous
expansions, some of which may be simultaneously intended?
e.g. the 'per' brevigraph, which may be expanded to 'per'
or to 'par' or sometimes to both?


On Thu, Jun 25, 2020, at 18:34, Martin Holmes wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> We're working on a linguistic MS in which sometimes two glyphs are
> written, one above the other, with the intention that they're seen as
> alternates -- just as you might mark variant spellings:
>
> realize
> realise
>
> by writing s over z, making no judgement about preference. How would you
> capture this? <choice> seems the right thing, but all its children have
> explicit relationships -- one thing is a correction or a regularization
> or an expansion of the other. How would you tag pure alternates?
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> --
> -------------------------------------
> Humanities Computing and Media Centre
> University of Victoria
> [hidden email]
>

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

Re: <choice> of pure alternates

Martin Holmes
Hi Paul,

I think I'm with Elena in thinking that there should probably be an
element for this, rather than abusing <expan>; what would a generic
processor do on encountering two <expan>s with no <abbr>?

Cheers,
Martin

On 2020-06-26 3:10 a.m., Paul Schaffner wrote:

> Could you treat the compactly-expressed representation as a kind
> of abbreviation?
>
> "I don't think you
> <choice><expan>realize</expan><expan>realise</expan></choice>
> how simple this can be?"
>
> pfs
>
> ps How do people encode ordinary brevigraphs with ambiguous
> expansions, some of which may be simultaneously intended?
> e.g. the 'per' brevigraph, which may be expanded to 'per'
> or to 'par' or sometimes to both?
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020, at 18:34, Martin Holmes wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We're working on a linguistic MS in which sometimes two glyphs are
>> written, one above the other, with the intention that they're seen as
>> alternates -- just as you might mark variant spellings:
>>
>> realize
>> realise
>>
>> by writing s over z, making no judgement about preference. How would you
>> capture this? <choice> seems the right thing, but all its children have
>> explicit relationships -- one thing is a correction or a regularization
>> or an expansion of the other. How would you tag pure alternates?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>> --
>> -------------------------------------
>> Humanities Computing and Media Centre
>> University of Victoria
>> [hidden email]
>>
>

--
-------------------------------------
Humanities Computing and Media Centre
University of Victoria
[hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [External] <choice> of pure alternates

Martin Holmes
In reply to this post by Kurz, Stephan
Hi Stephan,

This is indeed a dictionary of sorts, and we are using <form>, so that's
a good option. It will require us to expand the alternation silently,
though. There's a degree of conflict between treating the text as a
primary source MS and trying to encode diplomatically, and
simultaneously encoding it as a dictionary.

Cheers,
Martin

On 2020-06-26 12:30 a.m., Kurz, Stephan wrote:

> Hi Martin,
>
> reading through the definition of <choice>, I doubt that this fits either, as it is not referring to the same point in a text.
> Were you encoding a dictionary, this effect was covered by the <form type="variant"> element. Though we do not know much about the linguistic Ms, to me that seems a plausible candidate for what is _meant_, and depending on the nature of the Ms you could think about <form>.
>
> On a loosely related side note: In German language research on Arno Schmidt as a literary writer that employed what you describe as a means of encoding alternatives, the term "Ramifikation" is used for this technique which is really easy to do on a mechanical typewriter, but rather complex to do properly in typesetting (cf. https://www.arno-schmidt-stiftung.de/content/Archiv/ZettelsTraum/ZT-Beispielheft.pdf, p. 9). The functional space of ramification for Schmidt is described there as "textual contraction, reading variant or for describing ambivalences".
>
> Best wishes, Stephan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Martin Holmes
> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 5:12 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [External] <choice> of pure alternates
>
> HI André,
>
> Since it's one letter, it would be:
>
> reali<seg xml:id="bslr1">s<add place="above" xml:id="altr1">z</add></seg>e
> <alt target="#bslr1" "#altr1" mode="excl" weights="0.5 0.5"/>
>
> But there's a claim in there that the z was added; in this case it
> wasn't. And I still think that <alt>, as it's defined and described in
> the guidelines, is more to do with the transcriber's uncertainty about
> the text. We don't have any uncertainty, we just have a convention that
> the writer was using to illustrate that either both forms exist, and
> either is OK.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> On 2020-06-25 6:50 p.m., De Tienne, Andre wrote:
>> Martin,
>>
>> You could treat it as an alternate reading:
>>
>> <seg xml:id="bslr1">realise</seg>
>>
>> <add place="above" xml:id="altr1">realize</add>
>>
>> <alt target="#bslr1" "#altr1" mode="excl" weights="0.5 0.5"/>
>>
>> You could also have  mode="incl" instead of mode="excl".
>>
>> (bslr= base line reading; altr = alternate reading)
>>
>> André
>>
>> -----------------------
>>
>> *André De Tienne, Ph.D.*
>>
>> Director and General Editor
>>
>> Peirce Edition Project
>>
>> Institute for American Thought
>>
>> Professor of Philosophy
>>
>> Department of Philosophy
>>
>> Editor-in-chief, /The American Journal of Semiotics/
>>
>> *Indiana University School of Liberal Arts*
>>
>> Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis
>>
>> 902 W New York St
>>
>> ES 0010
>>
>> Indianapolis, IN 46202-5197
>>
>> 317-274-2033
>>
>> IAT: 317-274-2173
>>
>> adetienn(at)iupui.edu
>>
>> www.peirce.iupui.edu/
>>
>> liberalarts.iupui.edu/iat/
>>
>> *From: *"TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list"
>> <[hidden email]> on behalf of Martin Holmes <[hidden email]>
>> *Reply-To: *Martin Holmes <[hidden email]>
>> *Date: *Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 6:34 PM
>> *To: *"[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
>> *Subject: *[External] <choice> of pure alternates
>>
>> This message was sent from a non-IU address. Please exercise caution
>> when clicking links or opening attachments from external sources.
>>
>> -------
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We're working on a linguistic MS in which sometimes two glyphs are
>>
>> written, one above the other, with the intention that they're seen as
>>
>> alternates -- just as you might mark variant spellings:
>>
>> realize
>>
>> realise
>>
>> by writing s over z, making no judgement about preference. How would you
>>
>> capture this? <choice> seems the right thing, but all its children have
>>
>> explicit relationships -- one thing is a correction or a regularization
>>
>> or an expansion of the other. How would you tag pure alternates?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> --
>>
>> -------------------------------------
>>
>> Humanities Computing and Media Centre
>>
>> University of Victoria
>>
>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>
>

--
-------------------------------------
Humanities Computing and Media Centre
University of Victoria
[hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [External] <choice> of pure alternates

Anne GF

Dear all,

<choice> accepts also <seg/> so it seems ok to write :

<choice>
  <seg>1</seg>
  <seg>2</seg>
</choice>

which doesn't give more importance to one or the other.

It works only if alternatives are seg ((arbitrary segment) represents any segmentation of text below the ‘chunk’ level.)


AnneGF

Le 26/06/2020 à 18:53, Martin Holmes a écrit :
Hi Stephan,

This is indeed a dictionary of sorts, and we are using <form>, so that's a good option. It will require us to expand the alternation silently, though. There's a degree of conflict between treating the text as a primary source MS and trying to encode diplomatically, and simultaneously encoding it as a dictionary.

Cheers,
Martin

On 2020-06-26 12:30 a.m., Kurz, Stephan wrote:
Hi Martin,

reading through the definition of <choice>, I doubt that this fits either, as it is not referring to the same point in a text.
Were you encoding a dictionary, this effect was covered by the <form type="variant"> element. Though we do not know much about the linguistic Ms, to me that seems a plausible candidate for what is _meant_, and depending on the nature of the Ms you could think about <form>.

On a loosely related side note: In German language research on Arno Schmidt as a literary writer that employed what you describe as a means of encoding alternatives, the term "Ramifikation" is used for this technique which is really easy to do on a mechanical typewriter, but rather complex to do properly in typesetting (cf. https://www.arno-schmidt-stiftung.de/content/Archiv/ZettelsTraum/ZT-Beispielheft.pdf, p. 9). The functional space of ramification for Schmidt is described there as "textual contraction, reading variant or for describing ambivalences".

Best wishes, Stephan

-----Original Message-----
From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list [hidden email] On Behalf Of Martin Holmes
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 5:12 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [External] <choice> of pure alternates

HI André,

Since it's one letter, it would be:

reali<seg xml:id="bslr1">s<add place="above" xml:id="altr1">z</add></seg>e
<alt target="#bslr1" "#altr1" mode="excl" weights="0.5 0.5"/>

But there's a claim in there that the z was added; in this case it
wasn't. And I still think that <alt>, as it's defined and described in
the guidelines, is more to do with the transcriber's uncertainty about
the text. We don't have any uncertainty, we just have a convention that
the writer was using to illustrate that either both forms exist, and
either is OK.

Cheers,
Martin

On 2020-06-25 6:50 p.m., De Tienne, Andre wrote:
Martin,

You could treat it as an alternate reading:

<seg xml:id="bslr1">realise</seg>

<add place="above" xml:id="altr1">realize</add>

<alt target="#bslr1" "#altr1" mode="excl" weights="0.5 0.5"/>

You could also have  mode="incl" instead of mode="excl".

(bslr= base line reading; altr = alternate reading)

André

-----------------------

*André De Tienne, Ph.D.*

Director and General Editor

Peirce Edition Project

Institute for American Thought

Professor of Philosophy

Department of Philosophy

Editor-in-chief, /The American Journal of Semiotics/

*Indiana University School of Liberal Arts*

Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis

902 W New York St

ES 0010

Indianapolis, IN 46202-5197

317-274-2033

IAT: 317-274-2173

adetienn(at)iupui.edu

www.peirce.iupui.edu/

liberalarts.iupui.edu/iat/

*From: *"TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list"
[hidden email] on behalf of Martin Holmes [hidden email]
*Reply-To: *Martin Holmes [hidden email]
*Date: *Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 6:34 PM
*To: *[hidden email] [hidden email]
*Subject: *[External] <choice> of pure alternates

This message was sent from a non-IU address. Please exercise caution
when clicking links or opening attachments from external sources.

-------

Hi all,

We're working on a linguistic MS in which sometimes two glyphs are

written, one above the other, with the intention that they're seen as

alternates -- just as you might mark variant spellings:

realize

realise

by writing s over z, making no judgement about preference. How would you

capture this? <choice> seems the right thing, but all its children have

explicit relationships -- one thing is a correction or a regularization

or an expansion of the other. How would you tag pure alternates?

Cheers,

Martin

-- 

-------------------------------------

Humanities Computing and Media Centre

University of Victoria

[hidden email] [hidden email]



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [External] <choice> of pure alternates

Martin Holmes
That's it! How did I miss that?

Thanks Anne!

On 2020-06-26 9:58 a.m., Anne GF wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> <choice> accepts also <seg/> so it seems ok to write :
>
> <choice>
>
>    <seg>1</seg>
>
>    <seg>2</seg>
>
> </choice>
>
> which doesn't give more importance to one or the other.
>
> It works only if alternatives are seg (///(arbitrary segment) represents
> any segmentation of text below the ‘chunk’ level./)
>
>
> AnneGF
>
> Le 26/06/2020 à 18:53, Martin Holmes a écrit :
>> Hi Stephan,
>>
>> This is indeed a dictionary of sorts, and we are using <form>, so
>> that's a good option. It will require us to expand the alternation
>> silently, though. There's a degree of conflict between treating the
>> text as a primary source MS and trying to encode diplomatically, and
>> simultaneously encoding it as a dictionary.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>> On 2020-06-26 12:30 a.m., Kurz, Stephan wrote:
>>> Hi Martin,
>>>
>>> reading through the definition of <choice>, I doubt that this fits
>>> either, as it is not referring to the same point in a text.
>>> Were you encoding a dictionary, this effect was covered by the <form
>>> type="variant"> element. Though we do not know much about the
>>> linguistic Ms, to me that seems a plausible candidate for what is
>>> _meant_, and depending on the nature of the Ms you could think about
>>> <form>.
>>>
>>> On a loosely related side note: In German language research on Arno
>>> Schmidt as a literary writer that employed what you describe as a
>>> means of encoding alternatives, the term "Ramifikation" is used for
>>> this technique which is really easy to do on a mechanical typewriter,
>>> but rather complex to do properly in typesetting (cf.
>>> https://www.arno-schmidt-stiftung.de/content/Archiv/ZettelsTraum/ZT-Beispielheft.pdf,
>>> p. 9). The functional space of ramification for Schmidt is described
>>> there as "textual contraction, reading variant or for describing
>>> ambivalences".
>>>
>>> Best wishes, Stephan
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list
>>> <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Martin Holmes
>>> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 5:12 AM
>>> To: [hidden email]
>>> Subject: Re: [External] <choice> of pure alternates
>>>
>>> HI André,
>>>
>>> Since it's one letter, it would be:
>>>
>>> reali<seg xml:id="bslr1">s<add place="above"
>>> xml:id="altr1">z</add></seg>e
>>> <alt target="#bslr1" "#altr1" mode="excl" weights="0.5 0.5"/>
>>>
>>> But there's a claim in there that the z was added; in this case it
>>> wasn't. And I still think that <alt>, as it's defined and described in
>>> the guidelines, is more to do with the transcriber's uncertainty about
>>> the text. We don't have any uncertainty, we just have a convention that
>>> the writer was using to illustrate that either both forms exist, and
>>> either is OK.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> On 2020-06-25 6:50 p.m., De Tienne, Andre wrote:
>>>> Martin,
>>>>
>>>> You could treat it as an alternate reading:
>>>>
>>>> <seg xml:id="bslr1">realise</seg>
>>>>
>>>> <add place="above" xml:id="altr1">realize</add>
>>>>
>>>> <alt target="#bslr1" "#altr1" mode="excl" weights="0.5 0.5"/>
>>>>
>>>> You could also have  mode="incl" instead of mode="excl".
>>>>
>>>> (bslr= base line reading; altr = alternate reading)
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>> -----------------------
>>>>
>>>> *André De Tienne, Ph.D.*
>>>>
>>>> Director and General Editor
>>>>
>>>> Peirce Edition Project
>>>>
>>>> Institute for American Thought
>>>>
>>>> Professor of Philosophy
>>>>
>>>> Department of Philosophy
>>>>
>>>> Editor-in-chief, /The American Journal of Semiotics/
>>>>
>>>> *Indiana University School of Liberal Arts*
>>>>
>>>> Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis
>>>>
>>>> 902 W New York St
>>>>
>>>> ES 0010
>>>>
>>>> Indianapolis, IN 46202-5197
>>>>
>>>> 317-274-2033
>>>>
>>>> IAT: 317-274-2173
>>>>
>>>> adetienn(at)iupui.edu
>>>>
>>>> www.peirce.iupui.edu/
>>>>
>>>> liberalarts.iupui.edu/iat/
>>>>
>>>> *From: *"TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list"
>>>> <[hidden email]> on behalf of Martin Holmes <[hidden email]>
>>>> *Reply-To: *Martin Holmes <[hidden email]>
>>>> *Date: *Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 6:34 PM
>>>> *To: *"[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
>>>> *Subject: *[External] <choice> of pure alternates
>>>>
>>>> This message was sent from a non-IU address. Please exercise caution
>>>> when clicking links or opening attachments from external sources.
>>>>
>>>> -------
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> We're working on a linguistic MS in which sometimes two glyphs are
>>>>
>>>> written, one above the other, with the intention that they're seen as
>>>>
>>>> alternates -- just as you might mark variant spellings:
>>>>
>>>> realize
>>>>
>>>> realise
>>>>
>>>> by writing s over z, making no judgement about preference. How would
>>>> you
>>>>
>>>> capture this? <choice> seems the right thing, but all its children have
>>>>
>>>> explicit relationships -- one thing is a correction or a regularization
>>>>
>>>> or an expansion of the other. How would you tag pure alternates?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Humanities Computing and Media Centre
>>>>
>>>> University of Victoria
>>>>
>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>
>>>
>>

--
-------------------------------------
Humanities Computing and Media Centre
University of Victoria
[hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [External] <choice> of pure alternates

Mylonas, Elli
I agree with the choice/seg solution, IIP follows the EpiDoc guidelines and does something similar for an editorial convention that supplying two options for a reading but refuses to make a choice of one over the other, it's usually marked a | b by the editors who do this. We use choice/unclear because in this case the characters aren't identifiable. 

best, --elli



On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 1:05 PM Martin Holmes <[hidden email]> wrote:
That's it! How did I miss that?

Thanks Anne!

On 2020-06-26 9:58 a.m., Anne GF wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> <choice> accepts also <seg/> so it seems ok to write :
>
> <choice>
>
>    <seg>1</seg>
>
>    <seg>2</seg>
>
> </choice>
>
> which doesn't give more importance to one or the other.
>
> It works only if alternatives are seg (///(arbitrary segment) represents
> any segmentation of text below the ‘chunk’ level./)
>
>
> AnneGF
>
> Le 26/06/2020 à 18:53, Martin Holmes a écrit :
>> Hi Stephan,
>>
>> This is indeed a dictionary of sorts, and we are using <form>, so
>> that's a good option. It will require us to expand the alternation
>> silently, though. There's a degree of conflict between treating the
>> text as a primary source MS and trying to encode diplomatically, and
>> simultaneously encoding it as a dictionary.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>> On 2020-06-26 12:30 a.m., Kurz, Stephan wrote:
>>> Hi Martin,
>>>
>>> reading through the definition of <choice>, I doubt that this fits
>>> either, as it is not referring to the same point in a text.
>>> Were you encoding a dictionary, this effect was covered by the <form
>>> type="variant"> element. Though we do not know much about the
>>> linguistic Ms, to me that seems a plausible candidate for what is
>>> _meant_, and depending on the nature of the Ms you could think about
>>> <form>.
>>>
>>> On a loosely related side note: In German language research on Arno
>>> Schmidt as a literary writer that employed what you describe as a
>>> means of encoding alternatives, the term "Ramifikation" is used for
>>> this technique which is really easy to do on a mechanical typewriter,
>>> but rather complex to do properly in typesetting (cf.
>>> https://www.arno-schmidt-stiftung.de/content/Archiv/ZettelsTraum/ZT-Beispielheft.pdf,
>>> p. 9). The functional space of ramification for Schmidt is described
>>> there as "textual contraction, reading variant or for describing
>>> ambivalences".
>>>
>>> Best wishes, Stephan
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list
>>> <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Martin Holmes
>>> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 5:12 AM
>>> To: [hidden email]
>>> Subject: Re: [External] <choice> of pure alternates
>>>
>>> HI André,
>>>
>>> Since it's one letter, it would be:
>>>
>>> reali<seg xml:id="bslr1">s<add place="above"
>>> xml:id="altr1">z</add></seg>e
>>> <alt target="#bslr1" "#altr1" mode="excl" weights="0.5 0.5"/>
>>>
>>> But there's a claim in there that the z was added; in this case it
>>> wasn't. And I still think that <alt>, as it's defined and described in
>>> the guidelines, is more to do with the transcriber's uncertainty about
>>> the text. We don't have any uncertainty, we just have a convention that
>>> the writer was using to illustrate that either both forms exist, and
>>> either is OK.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> On 2020-06-25 6:50 p.m., De Tienne, Andre wrote:
>>>> Martin,
>>>>
>>>> You could treat it as an alternate reading:
>>>>
>>>> <seg xml:id="bslr1">realise</seg>
>>>>
>>>> <add place="above" xml:id="altr1">realize</add>
>>>>
>>>> <alt target="#bslr1" "#altr1" mode="excl" weights="0.5 0.5"/>
>>>>
>>>> You could also have  mode="incl" instead of mode="excl".
>>>>
>>>> (bslr= base line reading; altr = alternate reading)
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>> -----------------------
>>>>
>>>> *André De Tienne, Ph.D.*
>>>>
>>>> Director and General Editor
>>>>
>>>> Peirce Edition Project
>>>>
>>>> Institute for American Thought
>>>>
>>>> Professor of Philosophy
>>>>
>>>> Department of Philosophy
>>>>
>>>> Editor-in-chief, /The American Journal of Semiotics/
>>>>
>>>> *Indiana University School of Liberal Arts*
>>>>
>>>> Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis
>>>>
>>>> 902 W New York St
>>>>
>>>> ES 0010
>>>>
>>>> Indianapolis, IN 46202-5197
>>>>
>>>> 317-274-2033
>>>>
>>>> IAT: 317-274-2173
>>>>
>>>> adetienn(at)iupui.edu
>>>>
>>>> www.peirce.iupui.edu/
>>>>
>>>> liberalarts.iupui.edu/iat/
>>>>
>>>> *From: *"TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list"
>>>> <[hidden email]> on behalf of Martin Holmes <[hidden email]>
>>>> *Reply-To: *Martin Holmes <[hidden email]>
>>>> *Date: *Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 6:34 PM
>>>> *To: *"[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
>>>> *Subject: *[External] <choice> of pure alternates
>>>>
>>>> This message was sent from a non-IU address. Please exercise caution
>>>> when clicking links or opening attachments from external sources.
>>>>
>>>> -------
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> We're working on a linguistic MS in which sometimes two glyphs are
>>>>
>>>> written, one above the other, with the intention that they're seen as
>>>>
>>>> alternates -- just as you might mark variant spellings:
>>>>
>>>> realize
>>>>
>>>> realise
>>>>
>>>> by writing s over z, making no judgement about preference. How would
>>>> you
>>>>
>>>> capture this? <choice> seems the right thing, but all its children have
>>>>
>>>> explicit relationships -- one thing is a correction or a regularization
>>>>
>>>> or an expansion of the other. How would you tag pure alternates?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Humanities Computing and Media Centre
>>>>
>>>> University of Victoria
>>>>
>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>
>>>
>>

--
-------------------------------------
Humanities Computing and Media Centre
University of Victoria
[hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [External] <choice> of pure alternates

Elena Pierazzo-3
Hi all,

I think that choice/seg could be a solution, but this only pushes the ambiguity of the encoding and of the situation to another level, namely it uses <seg> as *magic token* that does what it’s on the mind of its encoder and may compromise interoperability and mutual understanding of what <seg> is actually encoding there. The point is that these are not arbitrary segments below chunks level (this is the meaning of the encoding), but they mean something very specific: they are linguistic variants of the same « thing » between which the author/compiler of the document cannot decide which is better. 
How to encode the semantic of that? One option, as ai said, would be a dedicated element, well documented etc. in a ODD, another is at least the usage of the @ana [1] with some sort of well documented labelling system.

However, beyond which encoding would be appropriate in this particular circumstance, in my opinion it would be recommended for the Council to reflect on the general phenomenon here, since it keeps coming up, namely how to encode open alternatives as found on drafts manuscripts, in order to avoid that each project finds its own solution, incompatible with the solution of others.

Best,
Elena



Le 26 juin 2020 à 20:05, Mylonas, Elli <[hidden email]> a écrit :

I agree with the choice/seg solution, IIP follows the EpiDoc guidelines and does something similar for an editorial convention that supplying two options for a reading but refuses to make a choice of one over the other, it's usually marked a | b by the editors who do this. We use choice/unclear because in this case the characters aren't identifiable. 

best, --elli



On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 1:05 PM Martin Holmes <[hidden email]> wrote:
That's it! How did I miss that?

Thanks Anne!

On 2020-06-26 9:58 a.m., Anne GF wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> <choice> accepts also <seg/> so it seems ok to write :
>
> <choice>
>
>    <seg>1</seg>
>
>    <seg>2</seg>
>
> </choice>
>
> which doesn't give more importance to one or the other.
>
> It works only if alternatives are seg (///(arbitrary segment) represents
> any segmentation of text below the ‘chunk’ level./)
>
>
> AnneGF
>
> Le 26/06/2020 à 18:53, Martin Holmes a écrit :
>> Hi Stephan,
>>
>> This is indeed a dictionary of sorts, and we are using <form>, so
>> that's a good option. It will require us to expand the alternation
>> silently, though. There's a degree of conflict between treating the
>> text as a primary source MS and trying to encode diplomatically, and
>> simultaneously encoding it as a dictionary.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>> On 2020-06-26 12:30 a.m., Kurz, Stephan wrote:
>>> Hi Martin,
>>>
>>> reading through the definition of <choice>, I doubt that this fits
>>> either, as it is not referring to the same point in a text.
>>> Were you encoding a dictionary, this effect was covered by the <form
>>> type="variant"> element. Though we do not know much about the
>>> linguistic Ms, to me that seems a plausible candidate for what is
>>> _meant_, and depending on the nature of the Ms you could think about
>>> <form>.
>>>
>>> On a loosely related side note: In German language research on Arno
>>> Schmidt as a literary writer that employed what you describe as a
>>> means of encoding alternatives, the term "Ramifikation" is used for
>>> this technique which is really easy to do on a mechanical typewriter,
>>> but rather complex to do properly in typesetting (cf.
>>> https://www.arno-schmidt-stiftung.de/content/Archiv/ZettelsTraum/ZT-Beispielheft.pdf,
>>> p. 9). The functional space of ramification for Schmidt is described
>>> there as "textual contraction, reading variant or for describing
>>> ambivalences".
>>>
>>> Best wishes, Stephan
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list
>>> <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Martin Holmes
>>> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 5:12 AM
>>> To: [hidden email]
>>> Subject: Re: [External] <choice> of pure alternates
>>>
>>> HI André,
>>>
>>> Since it's one letter, it would be:
>>>
>>> reali<seg xml:id="bslr1">s<add place="above"
>>> xml:id="altr1">z</add></seg>e
>>> <alt target="#bslr1" "#altr1" mode="excl" weights="0.5 0.5"/>
>>>
>>> But there's a claim in there that the z was added; in this case it
>>> wasn't. And I still think that <alt>, as it's defined and described in
>>> the guidelines, is more to do with the transcriber's uncertainty about
>>> the text. We don't have any uncertainty, we just have a convention that
>>> the writer was using to illustrate that either both forms exist, and
>>> either is OK.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> On 2020-06-25 6:50 p.m., De Tienne, Andre wrote:
>>>> Martin,
>>>>
>>>> You could treat it as an alternate reading:
>>>>
>>>> <seg xml:id="bslr1">realise</seg>
>>>>
>>>> <add place="above" xml:id="altr1">realize</add>
>>>>
>>>> <alt target="#bslr1" "#altr1" mode="excl" weights="0.5 0.5"/>
>>>>
>>>> You could also have  mode="incl" instead of mode="excl".
>>>>
>>>> (bslr= base line reading; altr = alternate reading)
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>> -----------------------
>>>>
>>>> *André De Tienne, Ph.D.*
>>>>
>>>> Director and General Editor
>>>>
>>>> Peirce Edition Project
>>>>
>>>> Institute for American Thought
>>>>
>>>> Professor of Philosophy
>>>>
>>>> Department of Philosophy
>>>>
>>>> Editor-in-chief, /The American Journal of Semiotics/
>>>>
>>>> *Indiana University School of Liberal Arts*
>>>>
>>>> Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis
>>>>
>>>> 902 W New York St
>>>>
>>>> ES 0010
>>>>
>>>> Indianapolis, IN 46202-5197
>>>>
>>>> 317-274-2033
>>>>
>>>> IAT: 317-274-2173
>>>>
>>>> adetienn(at)iupui.edu
>>>>
>>>> www.peirce.iupui.edu/
>>>>
>>>> liberalarts.iupui.edu/iat/
>>>>
>>>> *From: *"TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list"
>>>> <[hidden email]> on behalf of Martin Holmes <[hidden email]>
>>>> *Reply-To: *Martin Holmes <[hidden email]>
>>>> *Date: *Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 6:34 PM
>>>> *To: *"[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
>>>> *Subject: *[External] <choice> of pure alternates
>>>>
>>>> This message was sent from a non-IU address. Please exercise caution
>>>> when clicking links or opening attachments from external sources.
>>>>
>>>> -------
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> We're working on a linguistic MS in which sometimes two glyphs are
>>>>
>>>> written, one above the other, with the intention that they're seen as
>>>>
>>>> alternates -- just as you might mark variant spellings:
>>>>
>>>> realize
>>>>
>>>> realise
>>>>
>>>> by writing s over z, making no judgement about preference. How would
>>>> you
>>>>
>>>> capture this? <choice> seems the right thing, but all its children have
>>>>
>>>> explicit relationships -- one thing is a correction or a regularization
>>>>
>>>> or an expansion of the other. How would you tag pure alternates?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Humanities Computing and Media Centre
>>>>
>>>> University of Victoria
>>>>
>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>
>>>
>>

--
-------------------------------------
Humanities Computing and Media Centre
University of Victoria
[hidden email]