Hello everybody, expecting much more comments and critics I am happy to have to deal only with these two - good founded - considerations. Let's start with the <div>/<seg>-question: I myself thought about the necesssity of dedicated elements for the diplomatic form of document. I do see that the arenga is in fact not more than one type of a text-segment like an introduction or an greeting clause in the beginning of a letter is. Thus I like the idea to put it into a <seg type="arenga">-element. But when I check the TEI I find that <seg> "May contain anything which may appear within a paragraph." (http://www.tei-c.org/P4X/ref-SEG.html) That is indeed not the case with the diplomatic structure of a charter. Thus we end up with the <div>-element: <div type="protocol"> <div type="Invocatio">In nomine dei</div> <div type="Intitulatio"> ...</div> ... </div> I'm not so happy with further streched use of the <div> element that Gautier suggests: Shouldn't we mark each charter with some unique element - just as MASTER does with the <msDescription>-Element? I do see that the single document in a medieval chartulary might suggest to see each document as a division of the complete text. But I don't see yet any disadvantage in structuring the text rather into <document>s than into <div type="document">. Following a line of distinction between linguistic structures in the charters - best covered by the TEI-elements - and generic diplomatic structures I would like to stay with the diplomtic elements as <document> and the metadata in the regestum. In fact the introduction of those metadata-elements would IMHO improve the TEI-definition . But I'm willing to learn :-) But I'm not stuck to the <num> element as it is indeed already represented in the id-attribute. Concluding I would following the line of Michael, marking the diplomatic structure of the text with <div type="">, any individual clause with the <cl type="">-Element, but leaving the the <document> and a metadata hierarchy in the <regestum>. What do you think, Gautier :-)? Best wishes Georg On 5 Nov 2004 at 22:05, Gautier Poupeau wrote:
I'm ok with Michael. I already say in Münnich, for me it's an error to create specific elements for the different part of a charter. So, <seg> can be a solution, but there is better : <div> and we add the type of part with the attribute "type". It's the goal of the <div> element to indicate the structure of the document. It's important, because we can edite another type of documents : letters, livre de comptes who don't have the same structure... and if we don't use generical elements to indicate the structure of our charters, we will not have to interrogate the different type of sources together and we loose the principle of interoperability, the goal of XML. For the same reason (think generic, not too specific), i think the <document> element can be replaced by a <div type="document"> or <div type="charters"> and for the <num> element we can use an attribute for example "n". Indeed, i think the meta-information like the number of a charter must be in an attribute and the text beetween the element must be interresting for an interrogation for a research. In the same logic, we can say <div type="text"> for <tenor>. For example : <div type="document"> <div type="regestum"> regeste </div> <div type="text"> <div type="protocol"> <div type="invocatio"> blabla.... </div>..... </div> <div type="context"> ..... </div> <div type="eschatocol"> .... </div> </div> </div>
The <elongata> element can be replaced by <hi rend="ellongata">, indeed the <hi> element "marks a word or phrase as graphically distinct from the surrounding text" (tei Guideliness). This remark don't prevent to normalyze between us the content of the "type" attribute. I don't understand good the goal of the element : facsimilia, prints, regesta, studies. Are you sure it's an element or the content of an element ? If i understant good, the goal of this elements is to indicate wich type of edition we encode. For that, we can use the <witDetail> element with the "type" attribute, for example : <witDetail type="classdocuments">facsimilia</witDetail>.
Gautier Poupeau
Michael Margolin a écrit :
Hi,
1. We suggest to use TEI element <seg> inside of the element <tenor> as a generic element for any diplomatic part encoding. The use <seg> would allow to avoid any restrictions on the hierarchy or naming for any given class of charters. The name of the diplomatic part shall be assigned to the "type" attribute.
2. We suggest to use CID definitions of diplomatic parts for general guidance only and to allow any other name to be used without violating of the <tenor> definition.
Michael Margolin, DEEDS Project, University of Toronto
----- Original Message ----- From: "Georg Vogeler" <G.Vogeler@lrz.uni-muenchen.de> To: <cei-l@lists.lrz-muenchen.de> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 7:28 AM Subject: TEI proposal - attachment 2
... 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@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)
_________________________________________________________ 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@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)