Dear Dan and Andrew,
Wonderful. We’ll adopt that use of <witDetail> in the DHARMA Encoding Guide for Critical Editions, but whould it not be better to do it in this way?
<witDetail wit="#P" type="ac"/>
<witDetail wit="#P" type="pc"/>
Andrew’s version of my approach 2 would not have worked for us, for the reason that Andrew points out himself, that a given <lem> or <rdg> may be supported by more than one witness, and the @type would not succeed in making clear to which of the witnesses the label ac/pc applies.
Also, in our Encoding Guide as it stands now we have prescribed the following use of @type on <lem>:
‘If the adopted reading is not directly supported by any of the witnesses, then you must apply to the <lem> an attribute @type. The permitted values are “norm”, “conj” and “emn”, respectively for normalization, conjecture and emendation.’
Examples:
<lem type=“norm”>pariśrānto ’pi</lem>
<lem type=“emn”>pariśrānto ’pi</lem>
<lem type=“conj”>pariśrānto ’pi</lem>
This discussion now has made me wonder whether it would perhaps be preferable to encode those three scenarios as follows:
<lem><reg>pariśrānto ’pimailto:andrew.ollett@gmail.com> a écrit :
Hmm, Dániel’s suggestion of witDetail seems like it's the most straightforward and most TEI-compliant. I'll have to start using it in my project!
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 10:06 AM Dániel Balogh mailto:danbalogh@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello, while I have no experience with critical editions in TEI, I can't resist chiming in. My first thought was that witnesses should be defined separately for P, Pac and Ppc. This may be a bit cumbersome, but it gets what you want without hacking TEI, and is methodologically simple. I've had a look at the Digital Latin Library linked by Andrew, and it seems that this is one of the two methods they propose (https://digitallatin.github.io/guidelines/LDLT-Guidelines.html#apparatus-cri...), while their other method (in the section to which Andrew links, https://digitallatin.github.io/guidelines/LDLT-Guidelines.html#apparatus-cri...) involves the use of the TEI element <witDetail> (https://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/TC.html#TCAPLW), which seems to be the proper TEI-sanctioned method for adding anything about a particular witness at a particular spot, including but not limited to "ac" and "pc".
Having thought a bit about this, I think your encoding use this latter method. According to TEI, witDetail is " a specialized note, which can be linked to both a reading and to one or more of the witnesses for that reading " and which " refers to the closest preceding lemhttps://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-lem.html or rdghttps://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-rdg.html. " Thus, you might use
<app>
vijayaḥ</lem>
<rdg wit=”#P”>vajayaḥ</rdg>
<witDetail wit="#P">ac</witDetail>
<rdg wit=”#R”>vajayo</rdg>
</app>
--- assuming that a siglum by default means the PC reading, and only the AC reading needs to be indicated separately, to make your encoding simpler;
or,
<app>
vijayaḥ</lem>
<witDetail wit="#P">pc</witDetail>
<rdg wit=”#P”>vajayaḥ</rdg>
<witDetail wit="#P">ac</witDetail>
<rdg wit=”#R”>vajayo</rdg>
</app>
-- assuming that both the PC and the AC readings need to be tagged explicitly.
All best,
Dan
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 16:38, Andrew Ollett mailto:andrew.ollett@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Arlo,
I have opted for solution #2 (marking corrections with @type, although in those cases I mark both the a.c. and p.c. reading with type):
e.g.
<app>
<lem wit="#J" type="pc">मेत्ता</lem>
<rdg wit="#J" type="ac">मत्ता</rdg>
<rdg source="#N #Bh">मित्ता</rdg>
</app>
rendered (in XeLaTeX with reledmac):
and for the opposite situation:
<app>
<lem wit="#J" type="ac">णो</lem>
<rdg wit="#J" type="pc" source="#N #Bh">णे</rdg>
</app>
rendered:
The only problem with this is that the @type attribute applies to the entire rdg/lem element, which means that if there are other attributes indicating other manuscripts or sources (as the second example shows), nothing explicitly links "a.c." or "p.c." to the manuscript witness. In my setup I have a convention whereby these @type attributes are interpreted as "going with" with @wit attribute, not with the @source attribute, but in a situation where you have multiple witnesses, you might need to refine this.
I note that the Digital Latin Library has (independently) adopted a similar approach: https://digitallatin.github.io/guidelines/LDLT-Guidelines.html#apparatus-cri...
Another, probably better, option is to use <rdgGrp> for all of the readings of a particular witness, although this makes rendering/processing a little bit more difficult.
Andrew
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 9:16 AM Arlo Griffiths mailto:arlo.griffiths@efeo.net> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Say we have declared three witnesses P Q and R and we are facing a scenario whereby the accepted reading is in one case the result of scribal correction in the witness.
Say that the display I desire is like this:
vijayaḥ Ppc Q ◇ vajayaḥ Pac vajayo R
How do I get there? I am surprised to find no guidance in the TEI guidelines.
I have imagined the following two encoding approaches. What do you think?
APPROACH 1
<app>
vijayaḥ</lem>
<rdg wit=”#P”><sic>vajayaḥ</sic></rdg>
<rdg wit=”#R”>vajayo</rdg>
</app>
and its counterpart if it is actually the ac reading that is accepted:
<app>
vijayaḥ</lem>
<rdg wit=”#P”><corr>vajayaḥ</corr></rdg>
<rdg wit=”#R”>vajayo</rdg>
</app>
APPROACH 2
<app>
vijayaḥ</lem>
<rdg wit=”#P” type=”ac”>vajayaḥ</sic></rdg>
<rdg wit=”#R”>vajayo</rdg>
</app>
and its counterpart if it is actually the ac reading that is accepted:
<app>
vijayaḥ</lem>
<rdg wit=”#P” type=”pc”>vajayaḥ</sic></rdg>
<rdg wit=”#R”>vajayo</rdg>
</app>
Thanks and best wishes,
Arlo
_______________________________________________
Indic-texts mailing list
Indic-texts@lists.tei-c.orgmailto:Indic-texts@lists.tei-c.org
http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/indic-texts
_______________________________________________
Indic-texts mailing list
Indic-texts@lists.tei-c.orgmailto:Indic-texts@lists.tei-c.org
http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/indic-texts
