November 2004 - cei-l - lists.lrz.de

Re: charters numbers only as attributes ?
by Gautier Poupeau Nov. 25, 2004

Nov. 25, 2004

Georg Vogeler a écrit : >Hi everybody, > >Gautier's and Patrick's contributions bring me back to the suggestion >of a dedicated element <num> in the CEI proposal for the TEI. It >might be good for the TEI to have that element for other projects to >as digitising existing prints seems to me a common enterprise. > > This <num> element already exists : http://www.tei-c.org/P4X/ref-NUM.html : " contains a number, written in any form". There is a "type" attribute. Gautier

5 6

WG: <regestum>
by Dr. Karsten Uhde Nov. 16, 2004

Nov. 16, 2004

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Dr. Karsten Uhde [mailto:uhde@staff.uni-marburg.de] Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. November 2004 07:51 An: 'g.vogeler(a)lmu.de'; '102063.2152(a)compuserve.com'; 'andreas.kuczera(a)web.de' Betreff: AW: <regestum> Dear all, In my opinion we have three types of "Regest" in Germany (like probably in other countries) and besides them one more common use of this word: 1. The "Vollregest", is something like we can find in the RI. It gives all information, all names and places that are given in the text of the charter. 2. The "Kurzregest", one can find as part of most archival finding aids for fonds with charters. It contains only the important facts and names. 3. The "Kopfregest" is something like a headline before giving the full text of a charter and it contains only the name of the issuer, the name of the addressee and the main information of the dispositio, nothing else. We in Marburg use the word "Regest" in all three cases only for the text, not for additional parts like a diplomatic analysis or the information within our <witlist> element. Additional to these three kinds of "Regest", this word is used by a lot of people for the whole entry about one charter in a book. In this case, "Regest" contains not only the "Vollregest" but also the Number, place and date of the charter, the diplomatic analysis, bibliographic information, the witlist elements etc. So, all German-speaking people will have the problem not to know, what <regestum> and also <regesta> will mean, without having a look on the hierarchy of the elements or the tag-library definitions. If this is also a problem in other languages, especially in English, we should think about changing it. Perhaps <charter> (Urkunde) or <charterentry> (Urkundeneintrag) could be better than <regestum> and <regestum> could then be used instead of <abstract> Greetings from Marburg Karsten -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Georg Vogeler [mailto:G.Vogeler@lrz.uni-muenchen.de] Gesendet: Freitag, 12. November 2004 16:18 An: cei-l(a)lists.lrz-muenchen.de; 102063.2152(a)compuserve.com; andreas.kuczera(a)web.de; uhde(a)staff.uni-marburg.de Betreff: <regestum> Hello from Munich, > 6.) I'm somewhat unhappy with <regestum>. As far as I have understood > this would contain ALL the information on a given charter except the > text? Then we would have an extremely wide notion of "regestum" since > this would include all bibliographic reference, description of > physical phenomena, discussion of authenticity, discussion of the > content of a charter and so on. Is this really the common use of the > word "regestum"? I have some doubts. Maybe we can find a more generic > word? And the restrict <regestum> to what it really means: the short > summary of the main information of a given charter. And for this, the > word has a perfectly clear and specific notion and should be an > element rather than an attribute of another already established > element. We have two elements in our list which could easily be confused in German as both are called "Regest": One is the "Kopfregest" heading an scholarly edition and the other is the "Vollregest" like that they are collecting for the Regesta imperii, giving the content of the document, extensive description and some historical and diplomatic analysis. If we see the "Kopfregest" together with the following parts (textual tradition, bibliographic informationes, diplomatic analysis) and compare that kind of text with the "Vollregest" of the Regesta imperii then I find them very similar. Thus we could do it with the term "<regestum>" for the "Vollregest" (including information on textual tradition etc.) and "<abstract>" for the "Kopfregest" (or "summary" or "analyse" in french). And finally I think the archival description is similar to the "Vollregest" and also called "Regest". But Karsten Uhde can correct me. Thus I would stick to <regestum> <abstract> ...</abstract> <witList> ... </witlist> ... </regestum> <tenor> ... </tenor> Best wishes Georg _________________________________________________________ Historisches Seminar Abteilung Geschichtliche Hilfswissenschaften Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Muenchen Postadresse: Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1, D-80539 Muenchen Bueroadresse: Amalienstr. 52, Zi. 211 T: ++49-89-2180 3784 F: ++49-89-21 80 2084 e-mail: G.Vogeler(a)lmu.de http://www.geschichte.uni-muenchen.de/ghw/personen_vogeler.shtml Moderator von der Virtual Library Geschichtliche Hilfswissenchaften (http://www.vl-ghw.lmu.de)

1 0

Re: <div> or <seg> or ...
by m.margolin＠utoronto.ca Nov. 13, 2004

Nov. 13, 2004

Hi everybody, 1. <div> vs. <seg> My suggestion to use <seg> for diplomatic parts encoding is based solely on the TEI definition stating that <seg> marks a text fragment and that exactly what the diplomatic part is. On the other hand <div> is more generic by definition and may contain some meta data along with the text. I think that we should always seek the balance between specific and generic. The prize of being to generic would be a performance penalty on the any kind of information retrievals. On the other hand any attempt to enumerate content of the data (for example to use precisely named element inside of the <tenor> can lead to making encoding to restrictive and essentially not applicable. Therefore I suggest to use <div type=document> instead of <document> , keep <tenor> because of its unambiguous meaning and use <seg> to encode any diplomatic part on any level. 2. Cartulary and Document. In my understanding the subject of XML encoding is a medieval charter which might belong to one or more cartularies. From the implementation point of view it would be unwise to encode multiple charters (cartulary) in the one text file where some special elements (like <div>) would mark boundaries of the each charter. Therefore each given charter encoding should the only include a references to parent cartularies. The common approach to implementation of the repository of charters is to create an independent database (or file system) entry for the each charter. 3. Georg Vogeler wrote: a) << Maybe Michal Gervers or <<Michael Margolin could give us an example where a alteration of the <<CID definition of diplomatic parts might be necessary? The main reason of suggesting generic approach to the diplomatic encoding is that it is simply not possible to predict all content variations of the real word documents (for example we currently distinguish between "standard" and "specific" parts of the <protocol> child elements, etc. It is also very difficult to predict the depth of the encoding appropriate for the given group of charters (for example there may be more than two level of diplomatic parts subdivisions). b) << I'm working here <<with an Perl-class on the possibilities of such a search enginge - <<hoping to present you some results at the end of the term). That <<would mean that we have to stuck to the terminology of the CID as <<long as it gives us an appropriate term. I see technically no problem from the point of view of the information retrieval in the case when element name stored in the "attributes" rather then in its name. The industrial search engine and database search facilities allow to index XML elements and to use standard SQL queries to based on the attribute values. Michael Margolin, DEEDS Project, University of Toronto

4 10

TEI proposal - attachment 2
by Georg Vogeler Nov. 10, 2004

Nov. 10, 2004

... and the mailing list limits the size of attachments to 40 KB - so here is the link to the rtf-document: http://www.cei.lmu.de/TEI-Proposal.rtf and a pdf-Version: http://www.cei.lmu.de/TEI-Proposal.pdf _________________________________________________________ Historisches Seminar Abteilung Geschichtliche Hilfswissenschaften Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Muenchen Postadresse: Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1, D-80539 Muenchen Bueroadresse: Amalienstr. 52, Zi. 211 T: ++49-89-2180 3784 F: ++49-89-21 80 2084 e-mail: G.Vogeler(a)lmu.de http://www.geschichte.uni-muenchen.de/ghw/personen_vogeler.shtml Moderator von der Virtual Library Geschichtliche Hilfswissenchaften (http://www.vl-ghw.lmu.de)

3 9

TEI-real world knowlegde
by Christian-Emil Ore Nov. 1, 2004

Nov. 1, 2004

Dear all, My collegue Øyvind Eide and I attended the annual meeting of TEI in Baltimore last week. Those of you reading the TEI-list may already know that we have suggested a SIG on ontologies and the TEI. The suggestion was accepted, The first task will be to go through the TEI and find all elements (tags) used to mark information talking about the world outside the document, e.g. persons, places etc. In principle the basic idea behind TEI was to mark the text. That is, <person>x</person> tell us that x is a person name, not a person. However, in many TEI applications of TEI this distiction is not used. Best, Christian-Emil Ore Faculty of Arts UNiversity of Oslo

1 0

TEI proposal
by Georg Vogeler Nov. 1, 2004

Nov. 1, 2004

Hello from Munich again, in the first days of september I had the opportunity to present our project at the DRH2004 in Newcastle (http://drh2004.ncl.ac.uk/abstract.php?abstract=215) where I got in contact with peolple from the TEI. They encouraged - not to say pressed - me to post a feature request to the TEI-sourceforge (https://sourceforge.net/projects/tei/) In the last days I made a draft of this proposal and attach it to this mail asking everybody to read and review it. Any suggestions - form style to content - are welcome! I would be happy to have your remarks in the next two weeks. Best wishes from the foggy Munich! Georg Vogele _________________________________________________________ Historisches Seminar Abteilung Geschichtliche Hilfswissenschaften Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Muenchen Postadresse: Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1, D-80539 Muenchen Bueroadresse: Amalienstr. 52, Zi. 211 T: ++49-89-2180 3784 F: ++49-89-21 80 2084 e-mail: G.Vogeler(a)lmu.de http://www.geschichte.uni-muenchen.de/ghw/personen_vogeler.shtml Moderator von der Virtual Library Geschichtliche Hilfswissenchaften (http://www.vl-ghw.lmu.de)

1 0