Minutes London 03-2009 - Revision history

James at 20:42, 25 March 2009

2009-03-25T20:42:25Z

Malte: /* Technical support */

2009-03-25T17:33:06Z

‎Technical support

Piotr Banski: + category

2009-03-20T13:41:34Z

+ category

Elenap: /* Specification tasks */

2009-03-19T15:34:46Z

‎Specification tasks

Elenap: /* Specification tasks */

2009-03-19T15:33:49Z

‎Specification tasks

Elenap: /* “Coordinate system” */

2009-03-19T13:50:35Z

‎“Coordinate system”

Elenap: /* Dating */

2009-03-19T13:46:12Z

‎Dating

Elenap: /* Theoretical framework */

2009-03-19T13:45:12Z

‎Theoretical framework

Gremid: New page: ''Present: Katrin Dennerlein, Paolo D'Iorio, Fotis Jannidis, Gregor Middell, Elena Pierazzo, Malte Rehbein, Moritz Wissenbach.'' ''Discussion led by Elena Pierazzo, minutes by Gregor Midd...

2009-03-15T16:06:30Z

New page: ''Present: Katrin Dennerlein, Paolo D'Iorio, Fotis Jannidis, Gregor Middell, Elena Pierazzo, Malte Rehbein, Moritz Wissenbach.'' ''Discussion led by Elena Pierazzo, minutes by Gregor Midd...

New page

''Present: Katrin Dennerlein, Paolo D'Iorio, Fotis Jannidis, Gregor Middell, Elena Pierazzo, Malte Rehbein, Moritz Wissenbach.''

''Discussion led by Elena Pierazzo, minutes by Gregor Middell.''

==Organization==

===Technical infrastructure/ Workflow===

* coordination takes place in this wiki
* project has to be announced on the news bar at http://tei-c.org/
* wiki will be reorganzied in 2 distinct parts: a public one (with announcements, draft specs …) and an internal one with information, that is less interesting to the general public
* list of sponsors has to go on the wiki as well
* ''Google Docs'' used for the (internal) specification process
* draft versions of the specification are checked out as a PDF document and put on the wiki every week, so we can gather feedback

===Conference in Paris===

* ITEM provides up to 3 rooms for the conference; definitely 1 on both days, possibly 3 on the second
* Paolo D'Iorio coordinates the room allocation with ITEM
* we want to offer lunch at the conference (attendants shall ''confirm'' their participation upon registration)
* SIG will invite speakers and organizers to a dinner as well
* Paolo D'Iorio organizes hotel, dinner bookings, internet access, beamer
* Malte Rehbein manages registration
* registration deadline is 17.04. (first come, first serve)
* conference program will be split up into 2 sections:
** a common program with presentations and public discussions
** a workgroup-oriented program with talks, which are oriented toward certain aspects of the specification

====Spending institution====

* TU Darmstadt/ Universität Würzburg (chair of Fotis Jannidis) will be spending institution
* in case of any restrictions NUI Galway can serve as a workaround
* funding will be provided by ALLC, ACH, TEI and Galway
* Fotis Jannidis contacts sponsors as soon as the ultimate recipient of reimbursements is determined

====Program: 1. day====

* start at 02:00pm
* one coffee break
* 2 sessions, 4 talks each, 15 min/talk + 5 min/discussion
* (edition) project presentations

====Program: 2. day====

* start at 09:00am
* present the SIG work: 45 min
* 10:00am: discussion
* 11:00am: coffee
* 11:30am: discussion
* 01:00pm: lunch
* 02:00pm:discussion, wrap up, roadmap, outlook
* finish at 03:30pm

====Technical support====

* we want to offer an optional web publication service, so attendants can refer online to all the examples during discussion

==Specification==

===Deliverables===

# a presentation of the draft specification at the conference
# the XML schema
# a contribution to the TEI guidelines

===Theoretical framework===

* the specification shall be independent of presuppositions made by a particular theoretical framework
* therefore a couple of typical dichotomies in editorial theory have to be recognized
* first there is the notion of ''fact (or representation) vs. interpretation''
* maybe we should think of differing ''levels of interpretation'' instead
* reason: we might not be able to cleary differentiate between „what's there“ (document/fact) and „how does it relate“ (text/interpretation)
* this leads to the second opposition , that is central to editorial theory: ''document vs. text''
* Paolo D'Iorio explains the HyperNietzsche approach to handle this opposition
* HyperNietzsche bases its functionality on a thorough manuscript description, that happens on the documentary level
* the interpretative acts (constituting a text) build upon the manuscript description
* to summarize the HyperNietzsche experience while trying to adopt TEI guidelines: the '''Text''' Encoding Initiative does not handle "the document level" very well thus far
* for genetic editions though, this level is crucial

===Methodology===

* we want to propose a standard, we do not want (even better: we cannot) prescribe one, given the complex landscape of editorial practices
* in the beginning we will work on a pseudo-encoding, which is tightly bound to our own terminology
* in a second step, we will try to map this pseudo-encoding to the actual TEI encoding framework, probably in cooperation with someone from the TEI Council
* the same step-by-step approach shall be taken for the standardization process
* first we develop an application profile aka. TEI customization
* when that proves to be of general interest, we rework it into a separate chapter for the TEI guidelines

==Aspects of Genetic Editions==

===Topological description on the document level===

* the description functions hierarchically on 3 levels:
* highest level: the ''page''
* pages contain ''zones''
* zones are are nestable, groupable, can overlap and have a depth level (aka. belong to a layer)
* zones are arbitrary in as much as they can be defined by layout and/or semantic aspects
* on a third level, zones normally contain (among other entities) ''lines''

===Dating===

* on the one handthe dating of a witness may not be directly related to its encoded content, it therefore has to go into the header
* on the other hand, dates added by the original author as metadata to the text on the witness should be encoded without necessarily going into the header
* dating can be justified by prose and/or by reference to a characteristic of a manuscript (e.g. hand)

<teiHeader>
<datingDesc>
<dating ....>
<div1>...</div1>
</dating>
</datingDesc>
</teiHeader>

===Time/ Chronology===

* we want to express time as absolute and relative measures
* express absolute time by adapting the existing date element/attributes; see http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ND.html#NDATTSda
* express relative time as predecessor/successor-relationships
** might be a direct relationship: next, previous
** might be a „sorting“ relationship: before, after
** relationships may also be expressed via a numbering scheme
** relationships may have 1:n cardinality, e.g. one witness is dated before a set of others

===Grouping changes (“changesets”)===

* forming changesets is necessary to group text passages, which all form one revision
* implemented either via a wrapping element (e.g. <revision/>) or via a stand-off mechanism for spatially disparate changes

===Alterations===

* alterations are practically related to the ''collation'' of texts
* we need to deal with collation as a separate aspect of genetic editions
* for example we need an expression for ''ommissions'' as a textual feature, that results from relating texts via collation
* another set of alterations to be expressed is the one, that results from authors ''fixating'' a text passage by overwriting it (e.g. a penciled passage fixated with ink)
* marginal notes have to be differentiated from ''functional marks'' commanding an alteration (e.g. „move this passage over there”)

===Deletions===

====“marked as used”====

* passages happen to be striked through, which marks the passage to be used at another location
* two-step markup
* first: markup the block on the document level
* secondly: describe the function (“mark as used”)

====Overwriting====

* overwriting is a special case of a deletion

===Undoing alterations===

* how to express on the document level, that an alteration has been taken back, e.g. a striked through passage being reinstantiated via a dotted underlining
* <restore/> already exists for undoing an deletion, but we might need a more general approach
* possible solutions via an element or via an attribute “undo”
* proposal: add a generic element <undo/> with an attribute referring to the action being undone
* can be further differentiated by a type attribute, e.g. immediate correction vs. revising
* this is preliminary: we have to open up this solution to discussion

===Transpositions===

* current approach: express transpositions as pairs of additions and deletions
* we also want to express transpositions as an atomic operation, because it might be expressed as such on the document as well
* first: make the segment to be transposed adressable
* either via an identifiable wrapping element or via a “cross-cutting” <seg/>
* secondly: markup “functional mark”, which might be in the text (e.g. a superlinear “add ‘is’ here”), with an element like <fm/>
* relate the functional mark to the identified passages

<add><fm type="addition">add</fm> ‘is’ here</add>

* either refer to the passage added via attributes
* or it might be implicit, which passage is transposed, because the <fm/> is contained in an <add/> or <delete/>
* maybe we can generalize the idea of a ''functional mark'' (<fm/>)
* we markup passages on the representational level, but also on the semantic level, on which they command alterations

===Clarification===

* think of clarification as a ''repetition'' of a text
* this idea can also offer a solution for encoding fixations

<repetition type="clarification|fixation|..." position="superlinear" hand=""/>

===Correction===

* supply an additional attribute to <add/> and <delete/> that typifies the alteration (e. g. “instant correction”)

===“Coordinate system”===

* how to express genetic relationships on an inter- and intra-document level
* we need a scheme for addressing the linked passages and a means for describing such relationships/ links
* adopt the HyperNietzsche concept: relational description via ''paths''
* paths are typed, depending on the relation expressed (e.g. a timeline, a conceptual link …)
* paths: define complete paths via a set of vertices (''steps'')
* <linkGrp/> is a candidate for grouping a set of steps forming a path
* steps of a path can be ordered or unordered, but that might belon to the aspect of uncertainty)
* the steps of a path should be describable, so the expressed relationships can be justified or further characterized
* we should import concepts from the critical apparatus here: http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/TC.html
* relationships might be ''transitive'' in nature, should we express that as well
* then: is there a potential scope conflict between the TEI and other graph-oriented markup languages like RDF/XML
* maybe we can differentiate between the description of the relationships itself and their characterization/justification
* the relationships might be described as an RDF graph, which is augmented with TEI-based prose

==Roadmap==

===Organizational tasks===

* conference announcement: Malte Rehbein
* call for more examples on the TEI list: Elena Pierazzo
* apply for a panel on the next TEI Member’s meeting

===Specification tasks===

* as we were not able to deal with all aspects, the further work on the remaining ones is distributed among the SIG members

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="2"
|-
! Aspect !! responsible
|-
| Alternatives || Elena Pierazzo
|-
| Substitution || Malte Rehbein
|-
| Gaps || Fotis Jannidis
|-
| Editorial Decisions || Paolo D'Iorio
|-
| Uncertainty || Malte Rehbein
|-
| Critical Apparatus || Fotis Jannidis
|-
|Textual Constitution || Elena Pierazzo, Paolo D'Iorio
|}

===Upcoming events===

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="2"
|- class="hintergrundfarbe5"
! Date/Time !! Event
|-
| 21.04. 09:30am CET || conference talk: content-related issues
|-
| 05.05. 09:30am CET || conference talk: organization-related issues
|-
| 11.05. || deadline for publication of draft specification to the conf. participants
|-
| 14./15.05. || Conference in Paris
|-
| 16.05. || post-conference meeting
|-
| 16.06. 09:30 CET || conference talk: specification
|-
| 07.08. 09:30 CET || conference talk: specification
|-
| 16./17.09. || Wuerzburg: finalize specification (place might change; depends on funding)
|}

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:42, 25 March 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[category:Genetic Editions]]		[[category:Genetic Editions]]
		+
		+	'''SEE DISCUSSION PAGE: Needs to indicate whose minutes, what sig, what subgroup, etc. preferrably in page-title/url'''
		+
	''Present: Katrin Dennerlein, Paolo D'Iorio, Fotis Jannidis, Gregor Middell, Elena Pierazzo, Malte Rehbein, Moritz Wissenbach.''		''Present: Katrin Dennerlein, Paolo D'Iorio, Fotis Jannidis, Gregor Middell, Elena Pierazzo, Malte Rehbein, Moritz Wissenbach.''

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:41, 20 March 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	[[category:Genetic Editions]]
	''Present: Katrin Dennerlein, Paolo D'Iorio, Fotis Jannidis, Gregor Middell, Elena Pierazzo, Malte Rehbein, Moritz Wissenbach.''		''Present: Katrin Dennerlein, Paolo D'Iorio, Fotis Jannidis, Gregor Middell, Elena Pierazzo, Malte Rehbein, Moritz Wissenbach.''

@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 ====Technical support====
-* we want to offer an optional web publication service, so attendants can refer online to all the examples during discussion
+* we want to offer an optional web publication service, so attendants can refer online to all the examples during discussion [not necessarily online: important is that the examples, i.e. images etc. are easily accessible during the discussion, so one powerpoint presentation including all images would do the job --[[User:Malte|Malte]] 13:33, 25 March 2009 (EDT)]
 ==Specification==

@@ Line 216: / Line 216: @@
 ! Aspect              !! responsible
 |-
-| Alternatives        || Elena Pierazzo
+| [[Alternatives]]        || Elena Pierazzo
 |-
 | Substitution        || Malte Rehbein

@@ Line 228: / Line 228: @@
 | Critical Apparatus  || Fotis Jannidis
 |-
-|Textual Constitution || Elena Pierazzo, Paolo D'Iorio
+|Textual Constitution || Paolo D'Iorio
 |}

@@ Line 192: / Line 192: @@
 * paths: define complete paths via a set of vertices (''steps'')
 * <linkGrp/> is a candidate for grouping a set of steps forming a path
-* steps of a path can be ordered or unordered, but that might belon to the aspect of uncertainty)
+* steps of a path can be ordered or unordered, but that might belong to the aspect of uncertainty)
 * the steps of a path should be describable, so the expressed relationships can be justified or further characterized
 * we should import concepts from the critical apparatus here: http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/TC.html
@@ Line 198: / Line 198: @@
 * then: is there a potential scope conflict between the TEI and other graph-oriented markup languages like RDF/XML
 * maybe we can differentiate between the description of the relationships itself and their characterization/justification
-* the relationships might be described as an RDF graph, which is augmented with TEI-based prose
+* the relationships might be described as an RDF graph, which is argumented with TEI-based prose
 ==Roadmap==

@@ Line 100: / Line 100: @@
 ===Dating===
-* on the one handthe dating of a witness may not be directly related to its encoded content, it therefore has to go into the header
+* on the one hand the dating of a witness may not be directly related to its encoded content, it therefore has to go into the header
-* on the other hand, dates added by the original author as metadata to the text on the witness should be encoded without necessarily going into the header
+* on the other hand, dates added by the original author as metadata to the text on the witness should be encoded without necessarily going into the header [can be embedded within a Functional Mark]
 * dating can be justified by prose and/or by reference to a characteristic of a manuscript (e.g. hand)

@@ Line 71: / Line 71: @@
 * maybe we should think of differing ''levels of interpretation'' instead
 * reason: we might not be able to cleary differentiate between „what's there“ (document/fact) and „how does it relate“ (text/interpretation)
-* this leads to the second opposition , that is central to editorial theory: ''document vs. text''
+* this leads to the second opposition, that is central to editorial theory: ''document vs. text''
 * Paolo D'Iorio explains the HyperNietzsche approach to handle this opposition
 * HyperNietzsche bases its functionality on a thorough manuscript description, that happens on the documentary level