JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for DIGITALCLASSICIST Archives


DIGITALCLASSICIST Archives

DIGITALCLASSICIST Archives


DIGITALCLASSICIST@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DIGITALCLASSICIST Home

DIGITALCLASSICIST Home

DIGITALCLASSICIST  April 2012

DIGITALCLASSICIST April 2012

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Why are there no digital scholarly editions of "classical" texts?

From:

"Kalvesmaki, Joel" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

The Digital Classicist List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 3 Apr 2012 16:44:47 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (55 lines)

Dear Paolo,

Your provocative web April 1 argument (no fooling!) lays several problems out very well. Regarding what you call Layer A versus Layer B: are you intending to promote a model where both layers can be captured in the same XML document, or to let each layer inhabit separate but interlinked (say, through word IDs) TEI-compliant files?

Would you be interested in doing your experimentation on your edition through T-Pen, where others from the Digital Classicist List could join you and look over your shoulder, perhaps even help?
http://t-pen.org/TPEN/

I have experimented with T-Pen a bit, and find it helpful; it is under development, and the staff is responsive to the needs and desires of its users. T-Pen has also made me realize that when one transcribes a manuscript, one needs to make a number of decisions about how to use TEI or the like, and there doesn't seem to be a mechanism in place to notify a reader (esp. a computer trying to include your text in a heterogenous corpus search) what transcription decisions have been made. For example, Byzantine MSS—my special interest—frequently employ an overbar to represent suspended letters. How do I communicate to a reader whether I've chosen to use U+0305 (or U+035E), a special attribute, or both? How do I declare whether I have observed breathing marks strictly, or if I have regularized them?

I don't think anyone should expect all transcribers to follow the same rules. But why shouldn't we expect them to declare what rules they have followed? The challenge, it seems, is less in technology and more in consensus, requiring discussion, meetings, and experimentation (as you note in your piece, currently lacking). One would think the way forward would be through the TEI Manuscripts SIG…
http://www.tei-c.org/Activities/SIG/Manuscript/
…but their documentation is cryptic and lacunose. And I suspect that the number of transcription decisions one would need to declare is large and perplexing.

I look forward to thoughts from others on the list, and more movement toward the model you advocate.

Best wishes,
jk
--
Joel Kalvesmaki
Editor in Byzantine Studies
Dumbarton Oaks
1703 32nd St. NW
Washington, DC 20007
(202) 339-6435


On 2 April 2012 13:37, Paolo Monella <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Dear All,

As I am a strong supporter of digital scholarly editions, I wrote a little provocation on the question "Why are there no digital scholarly editions of 'classical' texts?" in
http://www.unipa.it/paolo.monella/lincei/why.html
(short link: http://goo.gl/GQ2JC)

Here is an abstract of what I wrote (*paragraph title* / summary):

* Starting point: we have a problem. Yes, we do *
Where I argue that there are no digital scholarly edition of a classical text with a multi-testimonial tradition (and I explain what I mean by that).

* Point 1: We don't have classical digital scholarly editions because classicists just don't feel they need them *
The title says it all.

* Point 2: They don't feel so because of the "canonisation" of the classical corpus *
Where I argue that classical texts are quite well preserved after all (due to "canonisation", in a specific sense that I explain), and that classicists don't feel they need digital scholarly editions because they consider the textual variance not too meaningful and they are more focussed on the "Text" than on "documents".

* Point 3. The missing link: is there also a modelling flaw? *
Where I notice that we have digital editions of "Texts" and digital editions of "documents", but no editions that link them (digital scholarly editions), and suspect that may be a flaw in our modelling of textual primary sources.

All comments and reactions are most welcome.

Best,
Paolo
http://www.unipa.it/paolo.monella/lincei
--
Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir
belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JISCMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
January 2006
December 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager