TEI/Epidoc : //note/lemma is incorrect.

[PonteIneptique]

Example

What should we do with //note/lemma ? Transform it to //note/w@lemma="text"

[simonastoyanova]

Or change to and then have the lemma in ?

[lcerrato]

Is it the example here?

iam prope lux aderat, qua qua cum me discedere Caesar

Looks like a variant with being used to designate that the "qua" has a variant of "qua cum"

[PonteIneptique]

Bumping this issue again, as I found another one and we did not give an answer I think. It's exactly what you said @lcerrato , this is a variant. The question is how to transform the note into something more usable :

In phi0474.phi024.perseus-lat1.xml

quod
<note>
  <lemma>quod</lemma> quia 
  <hi rend="italics"><foreign xml:lang="grc">ς</foreign>B</hi>
</note> diebus festis ludisque publicis, omnibus forensibus negotiis intermissis, u

I assume we would go with the Inline apparatus criticus

I would propose :

quod <note>
 <app type="alternative">
    <lem>quod</lem>
    <rdg wit="ς">quia</rdg>
 </app>
</note>

or

 <app type="alternative">
    <lem>quod</lem>
    <rdg wit="ς">quia</rdg>
 </app>

[PonteIneptique]

Ping @lcerrato @simonastoyanova

[balmas]

I like the idea of using the app crit markup

[lcerrato]

Sounds like a plan.

[simonastoyanova]

Your guesses look good to me. Thinking of the Perseus CSS, of which I don't know anything, does it matter if we put the "quod" in the app/lem only (option 2), or if we leave it in the text as well (option 1)? Personally I'd prefer option 2, I think, which doesn't repeat the word. Otherwise it's all fine!

[PonteIneptique]

Thanks all of you !

[lcerrato]

@simonastoyanova I don't think it would be duplicated here. Looks like it is just an illustration to show that the note is attached to the quod. (Unless I'm reading it wrong). It's a matter of whether you want a note or inline in a case where the original offers no precedent. If there's a note in the original text, I would keep the note. But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. But I don't see the current Perseus implementation having any bearing on the ultimate decision as this won't appear in P4 so current Perseus practice in terms of display is not a deciding factor.

[simonastoyanova]

Thanks, this answers my question. Of course, we keep the note if it’s there.

On Thursday, 29 October 2015, Lisa Cerrato notifications@github.com wrote:

@simonastoyanova I don't think it would be duplicated here. Looks like it is just an illustration to show that the note is attached to the quod. (Unless I'm reading it wrong). It's a matter of whether you want a note or inline in a case where the original offers no precedent. If there's a note in the original text, I would keep the note. But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. But I don't see the current Perseus implementation having any bearing on the ultimate decision as this won't appear in P4 so current Perseus practice in terms of display is not a deciding factor.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.< https://ci5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/zFWKpwfFKD2ElnCmhMTcU9CU-Z16B3KeyQpV59iYDE7To_drc9xk-MhWFYwtqxUkIS75ubP307smWcej4PU64HvAvQoT6RuW2ZCsQ7OahyPsTIv7jl3AK-Wj49uJQohseNeLnp1_g2YYV_RV5vgwZlqTXoiQiQ=s0-d-e1-ft#https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AEtm5yhq7LNGhdNkP8-IPNYONEzn9xP7ks5pAjp-gaJpZM4EtRBM.gif

Simona Stoyanova Research Associate

Digital Humanities Department of Computer Science University of Leipzig Augustusplatz 10 04109 Leipzig, Germany

[PonteIneptique]

In this context, and the fact that actually, the use of <note> is far from being harmonized, I went with <note><app><lem>hospitiisque</lem></app>..

Automatic treatment is far too complex to be dealt with. This way I don't lose information, achieve epidoc compliancy and we can look at it later for transforming the note into a real critical apparatus.