sourceDesc best practice

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

sourceDesc best practice

Lou Burnard-6

As more and more digital texts get produced and then repurposed (curated?) into TEI, I am sure more and more people have had to face the problem of how properly to represent their pedigree (the text's, not the people's) in the sourceDesc. But I haven't yet found any very clear indication of recommended practice in this respect, or not one I like much at any rate.

Here's a far from unusual scenario. The project is producing a collection of literary texts in TEI, many of which are already digitized in page image, or HTML, or some other non TEI format. They may even be in TEI, but it's not the same as the TEI we want in our project. The project has defined a rather strict and specific TEI schema, and everything has to be converted to it. Consequently, it needs to record in the sourceDesc up to three bibliographic descriptions -- one for the digital source used, one for the print source from which that digital version derives, and possibly one or more others for sources used to modify the primary digital source.  I don't think it's good enough just to list the three bibls (if bibls they be) because that loses information about the relationships amongst them. So here is an example of how I am thinking of doing this:

<sourceDesc>
<bibl>
<ref target="http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k931128v"> Tatiana Leïlof roman parisien (édition numerisée) </ref>
<publisher> gallica.bnf.fr / Bibliothèque nationale de France </publisher>
<idno type="ARK">12148/bpt6k931128v</idno>
<relatedItem type="printSource">
  <bibl><title>Tatiana Leïlof , roman parisien, par Édouard Rod</title>
  <publisher>E. Plon, Nourrit et Cie</publisher>
  <pubPlace>Paris</pubPlace>
  <date>1886</date>
</bibl>
</relatedItem>
</bibl>
</sourceDesc>

I think this shows rather nicely that the source of the text in the header of which this appears is a digital text published by the BNF with the identifier shown, the print source for which is the title published in Paris in 1886.`Now suppose that the digital source used for the project has been collated with a (fictitious) 20th c edition to create our new TEI version. I can just add another relatedItem within the outer bibl, distinguishing it by means of its  @type attribute:
 
<relatedItem type="collatedWith">
  <bibl><title>Tatiana Leïlof , roman parisien, par Édouard Rod</title>
  <publisher>Gallimard</publisher>
  <pubPlace>Paris</pubPlace>
  <date>1902</date>
</bibl>
</relatedItem>


My question to the list is : does this look reasonable? and if you were (or have been) faced with this scenario, how would you deal with it? I know, I know, you'd use RDF. But say you want to humour an old man, and do everythng in TEI :-) 
 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: sourceDesc best practice

Martin Mueller

This is indeed a very big problem and raises all manner of bibliographical and ethical problems. We’ have pushed that can down the road in our EarlyProject project, which takes as its source a TCP transcription but adds different kinds of values through linguistic annotation and some other steps. I lack the bibliographical or technical expertise to come up with a good solution, but I know it’s a can that we cannot push down the road much longer. It would be good to have  some discussion of this in the Guidelines. There may not be a single solution, but there certainly should be some guidance about what is practical and proper.

 

Would this be a good topic for the TEI in Libraries group to pick up?  That certainly is a group of people who know a lot about the intersection of bibliography and TEI, which seems to be the sweet or sore spot of this problem.

 

Martin Mueller

 

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, May 13, 2018 at 4:06 PM
To: "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list" <[hidden email]>
Subject: sourceDesc best practice

 

As more and more digital texts get produced and then repurposed (curated?) into TEI, I am sure more and more people have had to face the problem of how properly to represent their pedigree (the text's, not the people's) in the sourceDesc. But I haven't yet found any very clear indication of recommended practice in this respect, or not one I like much at any rate.

Here's a far from unusual scenario. The project is producing a collection of literary texts in TEI, many of which are already digitized in page image, or HTML, or some other non TEI format. They may even be in TEI, but it's not the same as the TEI we want in our project. The project has defined a rather strict and specific TEI schema, and everything has to be converted to it. Consequently, it needs to record in the sourceDesc up to three bibliographic descriptions -- one for the digital source used, one for the print source from which that digital version derives, and possibly one or more others for sources used to modify the primary digital source.  I don't think it's good enough just to list the three bibls (if bibls they be) because that loses information about the relationships amongst them. So here is an example of how I am thinking of doing this:

<sourceDesc>
<bibl>
<ref target="http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k931128v"> Tatiana Leïlof roman parisien (édition numerisée) </ref>
<publisher> gallica.bnf.fr / Bibliothèque nationale de France </publisher>
<idno type="ARK">12148/bpt6k931128v</idno>
<relatedItem type="printSource">
  <bibl><title>Tatiana Leïlof , roman parisien, par Édouard Rod</title>
  <publisher>E. Plon, Nourrit et Cie</publisher>
  <pubPlace>Paris</pubPlace>
  <date>1886</date>
</bibl>
</relatedItem>
</bibl>
</sourceDesc>


I think this shows rather nicely that the source of the text in the header of which this appears is a digital text published by the BNF with the identifier shown, the print source for which is the title published in Paris in 1886.`Now suppose that the digital source used for the project has been collated with a (fictitious) 20th c edition to create our new TEI version. I can just add another relatedItem within the outer bibl, distinguishing it by means of its  @type attribute:
 

<relatedItem type="collatedWith">
  <bibl><title>Tatiana Leïlof , roman parisien, par Édouard Rod</title>
  <publisher>Gallimard</publisher>
  <pubPlace>Paris</pubPlace>
  <date>1902</date>
</bibl>
</relatedItem>
 
 
My question to the list is : does this look reasonable? and if you were (or have been) faced with this scenario, how would you deal with it? I know, I know, you'd use RDF. But say you want to humour an old man, and do everythng in TEI :-) 
 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: sourceDesc best practice

Kevin Hawkins
In reply to this post by Lou Burnard-6

Yes, I agree that the SIG on Libraries might be a good group through which to organize work on this.  In recent years the SIG has only worked on revising Best Practices for TEI in Libraries – a project that Elli, Syd, and I have been working in the past few months to complete.

However, as I wrote to the SIG list back in November, Stefanie and I would like to step back as convenors of this SIG.  No one has volunteered to take over, but I wonder if there are people interested in the topic below that might form a new cohort of SIG members and from whom a new SIG convenor (or co-convenors) might emerge.

Kevin

On 5/13/18 11:17 PM, Martin Mueller wrote:

This is indeed a very big problem and raises all manner of bibliographical and ethical problems. We’ have pushed that can down the road in our EarlyProject project, which takes as its source a TCP transcription but adds different kinds of values through linguistic annotation and some other steps. I lack the bibliographical or technical expertise to come up with a good solution, but I know it’s a can that we cannot push down the road much longer. It would be good to have  some discussion of this in the Guidelines. There may not be a single solution, but there certainly should be some guidance about what is practical and proper.

 

Would this be a good topic for the TEI in Libraries group to pick up?  That certainly is a group of people who know a lot about the intersection of bibliography and TEI, which seems to be the sweet or sore spot of this problem.

 

Martin Mueller

 

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, May 13, 2018 at 4:06 PM
To: "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list" [hidden email]
Subject: sourceDesc best practice

 

As more and more digital texts get produced and then repurposed (curated?) into TEI, I am sure more and more people have had to face the problem of how properly to represent their pedigree (the text's, not the people's) in the sourceDesc. But I haven't yet found any very clear indication of recommended practice in this respect, or not one I like much at any rate.

Here's a far from unusual scenario. The project is producing a collection of literary texts in TEI, many of which are already digitized in page image, or HTML, or some other non TEI format. They may even be in TEI, but it's not the same as the TEI we want in our project. The project has defined a rather strict and specific TEI schema, and everything has to be converted to it. Consequently, it needs to record in the sourceDesc up to three bibliographic descriptions -- one for the digital source used, one for the print source from which that digital version derives, and possibly one or more others for sources used to modify the primary digital source.  I don't think it's good enough just to list the three bibls (if bibls they be) because that loses information about the relationships amongst them. So here is an example of how I am thinking of doing this:

<sourceDesc>
<bibl>
<ref target="http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k931128v"> Tatiana Leïlof roman parisien (édition numerisée) </ref>
<publisher> gallica.bnf.fr / Bibliothèque nationale de France </publisher>
<idno type="ARK">12148/bpt6k931128v</idno>
<relatedItem type="printSource">
  <bibl><title>Tatiana Leïlof , roman parisien, par Édouard Rod</title>
  <publisher>E. Plon, Nourrit et Cie</publisher>
  <pubPlace>Paris</pubPlace>
  <date>1886</date>
</bibl>
</relatedItem>
</bibl>
</sourceDesc>


I think this shows rather nicely that the source of the text in the header of which this appears is a digital text published by the BNF with the identifier shown, the print source for which is the title published in Paris in 1886.`Now suppose that the digital source used for the project has been collated with a (fictitious) 20th c edition to create our new TEI version. I can just add another relatedItem within the outer bibl, distinguishing it by means of its  @type attribute:
 

<relatedItem type="collatedWith">
  <bibl><title>Tatiana Leïlof , roman parisien, par Édouard Rod</title>
  <publisher>Gallimard</publisher>
  <pubPlace>Paris</pubPlace>
  <date>1902</date>
</bibl>
</relatedItem>
 
 
My question to the list is : does this look reasonable? and if you were (or have been) faced with this scenario, how would you deal with it? I know, I know, you'd use RDF. But say you want to humour an old man, and do everythng in TEI :-) 
 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: sourceDesc best practice

Lou Burnard-6

My original enquiry was about other people's practice when faced by this problem. No doubt some work group or other bunch of concerned citizens could progress this to the point of making solid recommendations, but I was just wondering whether (a) anyone else actually has this concern (b) for those that do (and I think they exist, obviously) what solutions have they found and what do they make of my suggestion (basically, to use <relatedItem> as a means of nesting one bibl within another to make explicit what I called the "pedigree" of a source.)



On 15/05/18 16:01, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
Yes, I agree that the SIG on Libraries might be a good group through which to organize work on this.  In recent years the SIG has only worked on revising /Best Practices for TEI in Libraries/ – a project that Elli, Syd, and I have been working in the past few months to complete.

However, as I wrote to the SIG list back in November, Stefanie and I would like to step back as convenors of this SIG.  No one has volunteered to take over, but I wonder if there are people interested in the topic below that might form a new cohort of SIG members and from whom a new SIG convenor (or co-convenors) might emerge.

Kevin

On 5/13/18 11:17 PM, Martin Mueller wrote:

This is indeed a very big problem and raises all manner of bibliographical and ethical problems. We’ have pushed that can down the road in our EarlyProject project, which takes as its source a TCP transcription but adds different kinds of values through linguistic annotation and some other steps. I lack the bibliographical or technical expertise to come up with a good solution, but I know it’s a can that we cannot push down the road much longer. It would be good to have  some discussion of this in the Guidelines. There may not be a single solution, but there certainly should be some guidance about what is practical and proper.

Would this be a good topic for the TEI in Libraries group to pick up? That certainly is a group of people who know a lot about the intersection of bibliography and TEI, which seems to be the sweet or sore spot of this problem.

Martin Mueller

*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, May 13, 2018 at 4:06 PM
*To: *"TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list" [hidden email]
*Subject: *sourceDesc best practice

As more and more digital texts get produced and then repurposed (curated?) into TEI, I am sure more and more people have had to face the problem of how properly to represent their pedigree (the text's, not the people's) in the sourceDesc. But I haven't yet found any very clear indication of recommended practice in this respect, or not one I like much at any rate.

Here's a far from unusual scenario. The project is producing a collection of literary texts in TEI, many of which are already digitized in page image, or HTML, or some other non TEI format. They may even be in TEI, but it's not the same as the TEI we want in our project. The project has defined a rather strict and specific TEI schema, and everything has to be converted to it. Consequently, it needs to record in the sourceDesc up to three bibliographic descriptions -- one for the digital source used, one for the print source from which that digital version derives, and possibly one or more others for sources used to modify the primary digital source.  I don't think it's good enough just to list the three bibls (if bibls they be) because that loses information about the relationships amongst them. So here is an example of how I am thinking of doing this:

    |<sourceDesc>|

    |<bibl>|

    |<ref
    target=|"http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k931128v"<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gallica.bnf.fr_ark-3A_12148_bpt6k931128v&d=DwMFaQ&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=rG8zxOdssqSzDRz4x1GLlmLOW60xyVXydxwnJZpkxbk&m=UiXVBp1MeFGUHJWz6fnhbSU1EUDiOrlqrNPB-4Cr1L4&s=xdDUERbpxAGJGoX8DaNL9TgLZmN6NW68uGqUc9LvmPw&e=>|>
    Tatiana Leïlof roman parisien (édition numerisée) </ref>|

    |<publisher> gallica.bnf.fr / Bibliothèque nationale de France
    </publisher>|

    |<idno type="ARK">12148/bpt6k931128v</idno>|

    |<relatedItem type="printSource">|

    |  <bibl><title>Tatiana Leïlof , roman parisien, par Édouard
    Rod</title>|

    |  <publisher>E. Plon, Nourrit et Cie</publisher>|

    |  <pubPlace>Paris</pubPlace>|

    |  <date>1886</date>|

    |</bibl>|

    |</relatedItem>|

    |</bibl>|

    |</sourceDesc>|


I think this shows rather nicely that the source of the text in the header of which this appears is a digital text published by the BNF with the identifier shown, the print source for which is the title published in Paris in 1886.`Now suppose that the digital source used for the project has been collated with a (fictitious) 20th c edition to create our new TEI version. I can just add another relatedItem within the outer bibl, distinguishing it by means of its  @type attribute:

|<relatedItem type="collatedWith">|
|  <bibl><title>Tatiana Leïlof , roman parisien, par Édouard Rod</title>|
|  <publisher>Gallimard</publisher>|
|  <pubPlace>Paris</pubPlace>|
|  <date>1902</date>|
|</bibl>|
|</relatedItem>|
||
||
|My question to the list is : does this look reasonable? and if you were (or have been) faced with this scenario, how would you deal with it? I know, I know, you'd use RDF. But say you want to humour an old man, and do everythng in TEI :-) |
||



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: sourceDesc best practice

Martin Mueller
In reply to this post by Kevin Hawkins

I was a not-very-active member of the Library SIG and would be happy to rejoin. I’m a retired Professor of English with a very limited grasp of bibliographic detail and the finer points of TEI. Which is a disadvantage from one perspective and an advantage from another. How to deal in a practical and proper way with a digital object that is a surrogate of some printed text via several intermediate digital of that text is an interesting problem, and, as Lou points out correctly, it will be an increasingly common problem.

 

From: "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list" <[hidden email]> on behalf of Kevin Hawkins <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: Kevin Hawkins <[hidden email]>
Date: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 9:01 AM
To: "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: sourceDesc best practice

 

Yes, I agree that the SIG on Libraries might be a good group through which to organize work on this.  In recent years the SIG has only worked on revising Best Practices for TEI in Libraries – a project that Elli, Syd, and I have been working in the past few months to complete.

However, as I wrote to the SIG list back in November, Stefanie and I would like to step back as convenors of this SIG.  No one has volunteered to take over, but I wonder if there are people interested in the topic below that might form a new cohort of SIG members and from whom a new SIG convenor (or co-convenors) might emerge.

Kevin

On 5/13/18 11:17 PM, Martin Mueller wrote:

This is indeed a very big problem and raises all manner of bibliographical and ethical problems. We’ have pushed that can down the road in our EarlyProject project, which takes as its source a TCP transcription but adds different kinds of values through linguistic annotation and some other steps. I lack the bibliographical or technical expertise to come up with a good solution, but I know it’s a can that we cannot push down the road much longer. It would be good to have  some discussion of this in the Guidelines. There may not be a single solution, but there certainly should be some guidance about what is practical and proper.

 

Would this be a good topic for the TEI in Libraries group to pick up?  That certainly is a group of people who know a lot about the intersection of bibliography and TEI, which seems to be the sweet or sore spot of this problem.

 

Martin Mueller

 

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, May 13, 2018 at 4:06 PM
To: "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list" [hidden email]
Subject: sourceDesc best practice

 

As more and more digital texts get produced and then repurposed (curated?) into TEI, I am sure more and more people have had to face the problem of how properly to represent their pedigree (the text's, not the people's) in the sourceDesc. But I haven't yet found any very clear indication of recommended practice in this respect, or not one I like much at any rate.

Here's a far from unusual scenario. The project is producing a collection of literary texts in TEI, many of which are already digitized in page image, or HTML, or some other non TEI format. They may even be in TEI, but it's not the same as the TEI we want in our project. The project has defined a rather strict and specific TEI schema, and everything has to be converted to it. Consequently, it needs to record in the sourceDesc up to three bibliographic descriptions -- one for the digital source used, one for the print source from which that digital version derives, and possibly one or more others for sources used to modify the primary digital source.  I don't think it's good enough just to list the three bibls (if bibls they be) because that loses information about the relationships amongst them. So here is an example of how I am thinking of doing this:

<sourceDesc>
<bibl>
<ref target="http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k931128v"> Tatiana Leïlof roman parisien (édition numerisée) </ref>
<publisher> gallica.bnf.fr / Bibliothèque nationale de France </publisher>
<idno type="ARK">12148/bpt6k931128v</idno>
<relatedItem type="printSource">
  <bibl><title>Tatiana Leïlof , roman parisien, par Édouard Rod</title>
  <publisher>E. Plon, Nourrit et Cie</publisher>
  <pubPlace>Paris</pubPlace>
  <date>1886</date>
</bibl>
</relatedItem>
</bibl>
</sourceDesc>


I think this shows rather nicely that the source of the text in the header of which this appears is a digital text published by the BNF with the identifier shown, the print source for which is the title published in Paris in 1886.`Now suppose that the digital source used for the project has been collated with a (fictitious) 20th c edition to create our new TEI version. I can just add another relatedItem within the outer bibl, distinguishing it by means of its  @type attribute:
 

<relatedItem type="collatedWith">
  <bibl><title>Tatiana Leïlof , roman parisien, par Édouard Rod</title>
  <publisher>Gallimard</publisher>
  <pubPlace>Paris</pubPlace>
  <date>1902</date>
</bibl>
</relatedItem>
 
 
My question to the list is : does this look reasonable? and if you were (or have been) faced with this scenario, how would you deal with it? I know, I know, you'd use RDF. But say you want to humour an old man, and do everythng in TEI :-) 
 



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: sourceDesc best practice

Martin Mueller
In reply to this post by Lou Burnard-6

I’ll report on what I’ve done with TCP texts, knowing that it is at best an interim. At one time, and on the advice of a librarian, I turned the children of fileDesc before sourceDesc into a second sourceDesc. I didn’t like that because it seemed to me to overload the header. There is also the problem of in(de)finite regress.

 

In the current versions at https://texts.earlyprint.org I modified the TCP fileDesc element by dropping the encodingDesc and adding a paragraph in editionStmt

that  describes the modifications of the TCP source file. This paragraph is displayed to the reader who clicks on the  “More” button.  The “More” statement also includes some data from a xenoData element.

 

I ‘m not very satisfied with that either, but there is so much work to be done inside <text> that the details of an appropriate header have become a bridge to be crossed later.

 

Some version of what Lou suggests makes a lot of sense to me.  In particular, information about corpus-wide is much more effectively stored and managed at one separate location and accessed via references from the header.

 

 

 

From: "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list" <[hidden email]> on behalf of Lou Burnard <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: Lou Burnard <[hidden email]>
Date: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 9:30 AM
To: "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: sourceDesc best practice

 

My original enquiry was about other people's practice when faced by this problem. No doubt some work group or other bunch of concerned citizens could progress this to the point of making solid recommendations, but I was just wondering whether (a) anyone else actually has this concern (b) for those that do (and I think they exist, obviously) what solutions have they found and what do they make of my suggestion (basically, to use <relatedItem> as a means of nesting one bibl within another to make explicit what I called the "pedigree" of a source.)

 

On 15/05/18 16:01, Kevin Hawkins wrote:

Yes, I agree that the SIG on Libraries might be a good group through which to organize work on this.  In recent years the SIG has only worked on revising /Best Practices for TEI in Libraries/ – a project that Elli, Syd, and I have been working in the past few months to complete.

However, as I wrote to the SIG list back in November, Stefanie and I would like to step back as convenors of this SIG.  No one has volunteered to take over, but I wonder if there are people interested in the topic below that might form a new cohort of SIG members and from whom a new SIG convenor (or co-convenors) might emerge.

Kevin

On 5/13/18 11:17 PM, Martin Mueller wrote:


This is indeed a very big problem and raises all manner of bibliographical and ethical problems. We’ have pushed that can down the road in our EarlyProject project, which takes as its source a TCP transcription but adds different kinds of values through linguistic annotation and some other steps. I lack the bibliographical or technical expertise to come up with a good solution, but I know it’s a can that we cannot push down the road much longer. It would be good to have  some discussion of this in the Guidelines. There may not be a single solution, but there certainly should be some guidance about what is practical and proper.

Would this be a good topic for the TEI in Libraries group to pick up? That certainly is a group of people who know a lot about the intersection of bibliography and TEI, which seems to be the sweet or sore spot of this problem.

Martin Mueller

*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, May 13, 2018 at 4:06 PM
*To: *"TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list"
[hidden email]
*Subject: *sourceDesc best practice

As more and more digital texts get produced and then repurposed (curated?) into TEI, I am sure more and more people have had to face the problem of how properly to represent their pedigree (the text's, not the people's) in the sourceDesc. But I haven't yet found any very clear indication of recommended practice in this respect, or not one I like much at any rate.

Here's a far from unusual scenario. The project is producing a collection of literary texts in TEI, many of which are already digitized in page image, or HTML, or some other non TEI format. They may even be in TEI, but it's not the same as the TEI we want in our project. The project has defined a rather strict and specific TEI schema, and everything has to be converted to it. Consequently, it needs to record in the sourceDesc up to three bibliographic descriptions -- one for the digital source used, one for the print source from which that digital version derives, and possibly one or more others for sources used to modify the primary digital source.  I don't think it's good enough just to list the three bibls (if bibls they be) because that loses information about the relationships amongst them. So here is an example of how I am thinking of doing this:

    |<sourceDesc>|

    |<bibl>|

    |<ref
    target=|
"http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k931128v"<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gallica.bnf.fr_ark-3A_12148_bpt6k931128v&d=DwMFaQ&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=rG8zxOdssqSzDRz4x1GLlmLOW60xyVXydxwnJZpkxbk&m=UiXVBp1MeFGUHJWz6fnhbSU1EUDiOrlqrNPB-4Cr1L4&s=xdDUERbpxAGJGoX8DaNL9TgLZmN6NW68uGqUc9LvmPw&e=>|>
    Tatiana Leïlof roman parisien (édition numerisée) </ref>|

    |<publisher> gallica.bnf.fr / Bibliothèque nationale de France
    </publisher>|

    |<idno type="ARK">12148/bpt6k931128v</idno>|

    |<relatedItem type="printSource">|

    |  <bibl><title>Tatiana Leïlof , roman parisien, par Édouard
    Rod</title>|

    |  <publisher>E. Plon, Nourrit et Cie</publisher>|

    |  <pubPlace>Paris</pubPlace>|

    |  <date>1886</date>|

    |</bibl>|

    |</relatedItem>|

    |</bibl>|

    |</sourceDesc>|


I think this shows rather nicely that the source of the text in the header of which this appears is a digital text published by the BNF with the identifier shown, the print source for which is the title published in Paris in 1886.`Now suppose that the digital source used for the project has been collated with a (fictitious) 20th c edition to create our new TEI version. I can just add another relatedItem within the outer bibl, distinguishing it by means of its  @type attribute:

|<relatedItem type="collatedWith">|
|  <bibl><title>Tatiana Leïlof , roman parisien, par Édouard Rod</title>|
|  <publisher>Gallimard</publisher>|
|  <pubPlace>Paris</pubPlace>|
|  <date>1902</date>|
|</bibl>|
|</relatedItem>|
||
||
|My question to the list is : does this look reasonable? and if you were (or have been) faced with this scenario, how would you deal with it? I know, I know, you'd use RDF. But say you want to humour an old man, and do everythng in TEI :-) |
||