Dear all, I'm very sorry to have been abstinent to this discussion so far. I'll try to catch up a little ... 1) Structure inside <tenor> (or whatever we will call it in the end). After all the discussion I still don't like <seg> or <div> here. Michael and Gautier have both raised good arguments against the respective elements. We should keep in mind that in our work we try to markup a very specific view on certain texts which is represented by an established vocabulary. <div> and <seg>, although extremely generic, are to be used for "primary" views on texts like global structures, layout structures and the like. In our approach I see parallels to other analytical approaches to certain types of texts (like drama, poems, spoken text etc.) or analytical perspectives (like grammar or semantics). Just as those have created dedicated tags we should try to establish things like <invocatio> or <protocol>. There is another - more generic reason - for my proposal: I expect these elements to be further differentiated in taxonomies of - for example - arengas or eschatocols. Then we would have things like <div type="arenga" subtype="xyz"> and although the concept of "subtype" already exists it is one of the ugliest I know and contradicts the whole concept of hierarchical markup, since it's (for example) not nested ... - So: I still strongly raise a plea for the whole diplomatic formular (?) on the element-level! 2) Charter numbers only as attributes: No. Please keep in mind, that my specific work regards mainly the digitisation of already printed (edited) charters as collections in charter books. There are numerous systems and ways of naming or numbering these charters. I have to bee able to keep and represent these systems. And I need the n-ATTRIBUTE to establish another, internal, global, synthetic numbering system. So I would still need a special element for these things - but I don't know how to call it. Any suggestions? 3.) Elongata as <hi type="elongata">. D'accord. 4.) facsimilia, prints, regesta, studies etc. as <listbibl>. Yes, that's what I proposed earlier. But we should press the TEI to allow a type-attribute for which we should provide a taxonomy. To use "n=printedEditions" would be a clear misuse of the semantics of the TEI-system, Gautier. Maybe we can even find allies for this case: There is work going on in the manuscript description (formerly known as MASTER) section of the TEI and I'm pretty sure that there are similar phenomena in Manuscript-Catalogues. 5.) <document> - After your discussion I have changed my mind and now do think that <group> <text type="charter"> would indeed be good solution! 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. 7.) There are a lot of other points I would like to comment on. But I think we should first try to bowl down some of the open questions that have been raised so far ... 8.) Dear Michael Margolin:
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. ** "to create an independent database (or file system)" is not THE common approach. It is ONE out of many approaches. As far as I can see there are much more projects, dealing with much more material which start with digitising already printed charter editions and have two goals: to keep all the information of the printed version and to make them available for systematic computer aided reasearch. And - well - then we have the approach Gautier stands for: creating new charter editions from scratch, but seeing things like a cartulaire as the primary information unit and not the "abstract" charter - which indeed can have several witnesses, documents and versions. I believe that the strength of our group is, that we perfectly represent these different approaches. But we should try to solve the problems of ALL of us. Of course this raises elementary problems - coming back to your posting: "the subject of XML encoding is a medieval charter". Yes, sometimes. And sometimes it's a charter book (cartulaire) and sometimes it's a single charter in an archive and sometimes (maybe most often) it's a printed collection of charters ...
Best regards, Patrick Sahle ___________________________________________________________________ Universität zu Köln Historisches Seminar Albertus-Magnus-Platz 50923 Koeln Privat: Häuschensweg 2a 50827 Köln +49 - (0)221 - 2805695 Sahle@uni-koeln.de http://www.uni-koeln.de/~ahz26/