Critical Apparatus Workgroup - Revision history

Jensopetersen: /* “Critical Apparatus” vs. “Textual Variance” vs. “Textual Variants” */ added plural -s

2014-12-11T13:43:12Z

‎“Critical Apparatus” vs. “Textual Variance” vs. “Textual Variants”: added plural -s

Matija Ogrin: /* “Critical Apparatus” vs. “Textual Variance” vs. “Textual Variants” */

2013-10-03T19:18:12Z

‎“Critical Apparatus” vs. “Textual Variance” vs. “Textual Variants”

Matija Ogrin at 21:05, 24 October 2011

2011-10-24T21:05:33Z

Jensopetersen: /* Representing "verbose" apparatus */ typos, grammar

2011-09-10T15:24:32Z

‎Representing "verbose" apparatus: typos, grammar

Jensopetersen: /* “Critical Apparatus” vs. “Textual Variance” vs. “Textual Variants” */ typo

2011-09-10T15:16:11Z

‎“Critical Apparatus” vs. “Textual Variance” vs. “Textual Variants”: typo

Mburghart: /* Inclusion of structural markup in the apparatus */

2011-09-07T17:52:38Z

‎Inclusion of structural markup in the apparatus

Mburghart: /* Inclusion of structural markup in the apparatus */

2011-09-07T17:48:49Z

‎Inclusion of structural markup in the apparatus

Mburghart at 22:34, 2 September 2011

2011-09-02T22:34:32Z

Stuartyeates at 22:29, 2 September 2011

2011-09-02T22:29:39Z

Stuartyeates: /* “Critical Apparatus” vs. “Textual Variance” vs. “Textual Variants” */

2011-09-02T22:27:52Z

‎“Critical Apparatus” vs. “Textual Variance” vs. “Textual Variants”

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 == “Critical Apparatus” vs. “Textual Variance” vs. “Textual Variants”==
-The very name of the chapter, "Critical apparatus", is felt by some to be be a problem: the '''critical apparatus''' is just inherited from the printed world and one of the possible physical embodiment of '''textual variance'''. EP therefore proposes to use this new name, moving from "critical apparatus" to textual variance.
+The very name of the chapter, "Critical apparatus", is felt by some to be be a problem: the '''critical apparatus''' is just inherited from the printed world and one of the possible physical embodiments of '''textual variance'''. EP therefore proposes to use this new name, moving from "critical apparatus" to textual variance.
 MB argues that, oddly, "textual variance" feels more restrictive to her than "critical apparatus": it is a notion linked with Cerquiglini's work, which does not correspond to '''every''' branch of textual criticism. On the other hand, strictly speaking, the "critical apparatus" is not limited to registering the variants of the several witnesses of a text. It also includes various kinds of notes (identification of the sources of the text, historical notes, etc.). Even texts with a single witness may have a critical apparatus. Maybe the problem with the name has its origins in the choice of giving the name "critical apparatus" to a part of the guidelines dedicated solely to the registration of textual variants.

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:18, 3 October 2013
Line 38:		Line 38:

	SAY: Prefers either '''textual variants''' or '''textual variance''' over '''Critical Apparatus''' simply because I believe their meaning is clearer to a larger proportion of English speaking people. Clear meanings help us inter-operate with other groups and standards by making our standard easier to read by third parties.		SAY: Prefers either '''textual variants''' or '''textual variance''' over '''Critical Apparatus''' simply because I believe their meaning is clearer to a larger proportion of English speaking people. Clear meanings help us inter-operate with other groups and standards by making our standard easier to read by third parties.
		+
		+	MO: argues that we should retain '''Critical Apparatus''' because it is a core philological term. In every branch of the Humanities, the terminology is among those core elements that are most resistant to changes, because old terms are deeply rooted in the practice and in the epistemological system of the disciplines. The most common way how terminology is changed in the Humanities is that old terms gradually accept new layers of meaning -- new semantics. Let us think, e.g., of 'digital edition'. The term 'edition' absorbed new meanings, and continues to be a good, functional term. This applies also to the dilemma of 'Critical Apparatus' vs. 'Textual Variants'. In the TEI community, we should also use the same fundamental terminology as is used in other, more traditional areas of philology, and show the advantage of our conception of the same term.

	== Issues ==		== Issues ==

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 * Gregor Middell (GM)
 * Dan O'Donnell (DOD)
 * Espen Ore (EO)
 * Elena Pierazzo (EP)

@@ Line 192: / Line 192: @@
 <blockquote style="background:#FFEAEA">You're encoding an existing edition, and want to represent the source it edits, while keeping intact the text / apparatus of the existing edition. Some apparatus entries are easy to represent with the <app> / <lem> / <rdg> elements, some others add editorial comments to the listing of the variants, and are quite difficult to represent. BTW, the same goes when you are encoding a born-digital edition for which you want to be able to generate an alternative print output corresponding to the traditional standards of a collection.
 <br/><br/>
-A - When I have a footnote giving two <i>lectiones</i> from the same manuscrip, one before correction and the other after: <br>
+A - When I have a footnote giving two <i>lectiones</i> from the same manuscript, one before correction and the other after: <br>
 <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag"></span>Text<span class="moz-txt-tag"></span></b>: ad lectorem Venetum (b) .
 <br>
@@ Line 198: / Line 198: @@
 <br/>
 <br/>
-If I encode it like this, with two seprate rdg for the same
+If I encode it like this, with two separate rdg for the same
 witness, each with a different @type (for instance, "anteCorr" and
 "postCorr"), it gives an accurate account of the state of the witness, BUT it is an
@@ Line 233: / Line 233: @@
 </p>
-I one represents this note strictly with the <app> / <rdg>, it leads to suppress remarks by the original editor. Adding a note in the rdg to preserve the editor's comments could work here, ut it's not always the case<br/>
+If one represents this note strictly with the <app> / <rdg>, it leads to the suppression of remarks by the original editor. Adding a note in the rdg to preserve the editor's comments could work here, but it's not always the case<br/>
 Like: <br/>
 <span style="">... Pergamensis &lt;app

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 MB proposes to use '''textual variants''' instead, since it focuses more on actual elements in the edition, when "variance" is nothing concrete but a phenomenon.
-Side remarks by MB: this vocabulary queston might prove sticky in the end. The <app> elements is named <app> because it is considered "an apparatus entry", so unless we end up recommending to change the elements names, the phrase "critical apparatus" will still be used in the module, at least to explain the tag names?
+Side remarks by MB: this vocabulary question might prove sticky in the end. The <app> elements is named <app> because it is considered "an apparatus entry", so unless we end up recommending to change the elements names, the phrase "critical apparatus" will still be used in the module, at least to explain the tag names?
 RDT argues that while backward compatibility is clearly a bonus, as MB states <app> stands for 'apparatus entry': we shouldn't be afraid to change its function, for instance making it a container instead of a phrase level element. RDT stresses that he is proposing this by way of example, and to stress that our focus is on variants: these might then be organised in <app>s for traditional CA display, and/or in other, new ways for electronic display. Note that this might mean no traditional critical apparatus in a digital edition.

@@ Line 105: / Line 105: @@
-'''Another use case:'''
+Another use case:
-<l>
+We have several witnesses of a poem, and in our base text, we have 8 stanzas, in another version only 6 stanzas and in some other 7? We are not allowed to have an <lg> and not even an <l> element within the <app> entry. So, we must put it the other way round, which may be somewhat awkward, like this:
 <app>
-<rdg wit="#A"> [the text of the verse line here] </rdg>
+    <l>
-<rdg wit="#B"/>
+    <app>
-<rdg wit="#C"/>
+    <rdg wit="#A"> [the text of the verse line here] </rdg>
-</app>
+    <rdg wit="#B"/>
-</l>
+    <rdg wit="#C"/>
 We should then repeat this for every <l> , while it would be more practical to "say" this only once for entire stanza (with an <lg> within a <rdg> ).
-</blockquote>
 More use cases from TEI-L:

@@ Line 89: / Line 89: @@
 Use case:
-<blockquote style="background:#FFEAEA">I'm encoding a 19th c. edition of a medieval text, and one of the
+<blockquote style="background:#FFEAEA">I'm encoding a 19th c. edition of a medieval text, and one of the witness has omissions of several paragraphs. Of course, the TEI schema
 won't let me put &lt;p&gt; elements inside an <app>/<lem> element...<br/><br/>
@@ Line 104: / Line 103: @@
 * http://tei.markmail.org/thread/tbzi2yj5xd4dto34
 More use cases from TEI-L:

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 * Elena Pierazzo (EP)
 * Roberto Rosselli del Turco (RDT)
 * Chris Wittern (CW)
 Comments below from others:
 * [[User:Stuartyeates|Stuart Yeates]] (SAY)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:29, 2 September 2011
Line 14:		Line 14:
	* Chris Wittern (CW)		* Chris Wittern (CW)

		+	Comments below from others:
		+	* [[User:Stuartyeates\|Stuart Yeates]] (SAY)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:27, 2 September 2011
Line 33:		Line 33:

	JC: Thinks this points to a slight divergent nature at the heart of the current critical apparatus recommendations. That of encoding an apparatus at the site of textual variance and encoding a structured view of a note entirely separate from the edited version of texts. (In mass digitization of critical editions, for example, one might have an <app> in a set of notes at the bottom of the page which are not encoded at the site of variance, or indeed necessarily connected with it.) It is this striving to both be able to encode all sorts of various legacy forms of apparatus as well as simultaneously catering for those who are recording the structure by which they will generate an apparatus in producing some output. So JC would argue that the first of these are apparatus and the second of these is a site/locus of textual variance.		JC: Thinks this points to a slight divergent nature at the heart of the current critical apparatus recommendations. That of encoding an apparatus at the site of textual variance and encoding a structured view of a note entirely separate from the edited version of texts. (In mass digitization of critical editions, for example, one might have an <app> in a set of notes at the bottom of the page which are not encoded at the site of variance, or indeed necessarily connected with it.) It is this striving to both be able to encode all sorts of various legacy forms of apparatus as well as simultaneously catering for those who are recording the structure by which they will generate an apparatus in producing some output. So JC would argue that the first of these are apparatus and the second of these is a site/locus of textual variance.
		+
		+	SAY: Prefers either '''textual variants''' or '''textual variance''' over '''Critical Apparatus''' simply because I believe their meaning is clearer to a larger proportion of English speaking people. Clear meanings help us inter-operate with other groups and standards by making our standard easier to read by third parties.

	== Issues ==		== Issues ==