Re: TEI P5 release 1.3.0

following up on Syd's comment,
the answer is http://www.tei-c.org/Roma/roma/oddschema.odd

as I say, a placeholder to allow for changes without
upsetting anything else. it does validate the Test
and Exemplar odd files.

--

-- 
Sebastian Rahtz
Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431

Sólo le pido a Dios
que el futuro no me sea indiferente

TEI P5 release 1.3.0

This release of the TEI, known locally as "Yes, we can":

  * adds two new elements (<listEvent> and <locusGrp>)

  * includes extensive modifications to the French translation,
  undertaken by the GE8 group under J-L. Benoit

  * includes a large number of Chinese examples provided by the Taiwan
  team under M. Bingenheimer

  * contains a range of minor changes agreed by the TEI Council between
  November 2008 and January 2009, in response to suggestions and bug
  reports received at the TEI Sourceforge request tracker.

Because there are changes the generated schemas, this takes
us from 1.2.1 to 1.3.0

Changes made are listed briefly in date order at
http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/readme-1.3.html. Where
further discussion of the change is available in the SF bug tracker,
the ticket number is indicated in parentheses in the list.

The release can be found in four places:

   * in the file release system on Sourceforge at 
https://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=106328
   * as Debian or Ubuntu packages (see http://tei.oucs.ox.ac.uk/teideb/)
   * in the Roma systems on www.tei-c.org/Roma/ and tei.oucs.ox.ac.uk/Roma/
   * from the TEI web site as separate files, from 
http://www.tei-c.org/release/

new releases of other TEI stuff (Roma and XSL)

Roma (3.7) and XSL stylesheet (5.15) releases which usually
accomplish a new TEI also took place yesterday,
and are in the same places as given for P5.

As noted, Roma has some bug fixes (formally changes
made ad hoc in December 2008), and has added validation.

The most noticeable changes in the stylesheets is that
generated documentation for TEI customizations is now
a lot more readable, as attribute classes are maintained
instead of being exploded every time into separate
attributes; the same change is visible in generated schemas
and dtds.

--

-- 
Sebastian Rahtz
Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431

Sólo le pido a Dios
que el futuro no me sea indiferente

using persName

Re: using persName

I'd have said <addName type="husbandName">Scott</addName>. its
really not a foreName, is it.

--

-- 
Sebastian Rahtz
Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431

Sólo le pido a Dios
que el futuro no me sea indiferente

Re: using persName

Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> I'd have said <addName type="husbandName">Scott</addName>. its
> really not a foreName, is it.
> 

It may not be the lady's forename, but "scott" is still a forename, even 
if it belongs to the husband, so I am less convinced that <foreName 
type="husbandName"> is inappropriate. Unless of course it was Mrs 
Scott-Jardine (of the Hampshire Scott-Jardines)

funny <date>s

(1) An amusing <date>:

<dateline>In my bed <date>the 20 fit of my Feaver.</date></dateline>

   --this of course being a play on the usual form:

   <dateline>From Rome <date>the 5. of February 1622.</date></dateline>

Maybe you had to be there.

(2) a verse dateline:

<dateline>
   <l>Dated on <date><hi>May-day</hi> when so lowd it Thundered,</date></l>
   <l><date>In <hi>Anno</hi> Seventy three and Sixteen hundred.</date></l>
</dateline>

This won't parse thus tagged, I think; but is there a ready way to tag it 
other than by turning the <l> into <lb/>?

pfs

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schaffner | PFSchaffner <at> umich.edu | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/
316-C Hatcher Library N, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI 48109-1205
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: funny <date>s

Paul F. Schaffner wrote:
>
> 
> (2) a verse dateline:
> 
> <dateline>
>    <l>Dated on <date><hi>May-day</hi> when so lowd it Thundered,</date></l>
>    <l><date>In <hi>Anno</hi> Seventy three and Sixteen hundred.</date></l>
> </dateline>
> 
> This won't parse thus tagged, I think; but is there a ready way to tag it 
> other than by turning the <l> into <lb/>?
> 

<dateLine> doesn't expect to get things like <l>s so the only thing I 
can suggest (and I'm not proud of it) would be <lg type="dateline">

Wouldn't you tag the "Anno" as <foreign> rather than <hi> though?

You could also (arguably) treat the whole couplet as a single <date>

<date value="1673-05-01">
Dated on May-day when so lowd it <rhyme>Thundered</rhyme>,<lb/>
In <foreign>Anno</foreign> Seventy three and Sixteen 
<rhyme>hundred</rhyme>.</date>

Re: funny <date>s

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Lou Burnard wrote:

>> <dateline>
>>    <l>Dated on <date><hi>May-day</hi> when so lowd it Thundered,</date></l>
>>    <l><date>In <hi>Anno</hi> Seventy three and Sixteen hundred.</date></l>
>> </dateline>

> <dateLine> doesn't expect to get things like <l>s so the only thing I can 
> suggest (and I'm not proud of it) would be <lg type="dateline">

Thank you. That's what I thought.

We don't meet this sort of thing often enough that we've been consistent,
but I think that most of the time we do use <lg> (or, rarely, <div>) 
 <at> type="dateline" or  <at> type="signed" or "salute" or what have you. More
rarely, maybe when the verse is of such poor quality that we feel
disinclined to remember that it *is* verse, we resort to <lb/>:

<dateline>
Dated on <date><hi>May-day</hi> when so lowd it Thundered,<lb/>
In <hi>Anno</hi> Seventy three and Sixteen hundred.</date>
</dateline>

> Wouldn't you tag the "Anno" as <foreign> rather than <hi> though?

We would if we tagged <foreign> at all: for the TCP texts we prefer to 
minimize the interpretive demands on our taggers, especially in deciding
why a given word or phrase is typographically marked. As a result,
unless the markedness can be taken as a cue that the word or phrase
is a divtop or divbottom element, or a note or speaker or stage
direction, or occasionally a label or q, we require no more than that
it be tagged as <hi>. In many, many cases, it is difficult to say
why a given word is highlighted anyway. Heck, in many cases it is
difficult to say which is the marked and which is the unmarked
typeface, amidst a tangle of roman, italic, and blackletter.

> You could also (arguably) treat the whole couplet as a single <date>
>
> <date value="1673-05-01">
> Dated on May-day when so lowd it <rhyme>Thundered</rhyme>,<lb/>
> In <foreign>Anno</foreign> Seventy three and Sixteen 
> <rhyme>hundred</rhyme>.</date>

It is probably a result of working so much with older texts
(instead of, say, modern newspapers), but I have always associated
<dateline> with the formulae that usually actually begin "Datum..."
or a vernacular equivalent ("<dateline>Given under my hand, <date>
this 14. day of August...</date></dateline>" ; "<dateline>Dated from
my palace at Lambeth <date>the ...</date></dateline>"). This
usage (or rather our habits in tagging it) militate in favour of 
including "Dated" within <dateline>, but not within <date>.

All this in the interest of exposing more code!

pfs

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schaffner | PFSchaffner <at> umich.edu | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/
316-C Hatcher Library N, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI 48109-1205
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Link to canonical bibliography

When working with multiple TEI files that are editions of short texts, 
as part of a larger project or corpus, we often cite short bibliography 
for each text and link that to a master bibliography file for the whole 
collection. What we should ideally do is point (via  <at> key or  <at> ref) to the 
 <at> xml:id of the bibl in the main bibliography, but it seems that <bibl> 
does not take att.canonical.

How do others do this? (In P4-world we abused  <at> n, but I don't want to do 
this any more.)

Would a feature request to add bibl to att.canonical have legs, do you 
think?

Thanks,

G

--

-- 
Dr Gabriel BODARD
(Epigrapher & Digital Classicist)

Centre for Computing in the Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL
Email: gabriel.bodard <at> kcl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
Fax: +44 (0)20 7848 2980

http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
http://www.currentepigraphy.org/