Make <app> model less strict

[TEITechnicalCouncil]

As discussed on TEI-L in July 2006, subjects "lemma (and app)" and "lemma and app".

(cf. also FR 1019594 Manuscript encoding)

The apparatus element <app> is extremely well designed for the encoding of critical apparatus as they are used in ecclectic manuscript editions, i.e. the recording of textual variants or editorial restorations, which is as it should be. However, there is a significant body of textual editions which have a slightly wider use of apparatus to describe important features of a text that exists in a single exemplar and therefore does not necessarily have textual variants. For reasons already discussed on-list, I would make the following two recommendations (to be considered independently):

(1) allow the element <note> to appear immediately inside <app>, as well as within <lem> and <rdg> as currently;

(2) make <rdg> within <app> optional rather than required, so that an <app> could contain, for example, just a <lem>, or even (more radically) just a <note>.

Am willing to return to this discussion privately or on TEI-L if necessary.

Original comment by: @gabrielbodard

[TEITechnicalCouncil]

This issue was originally assigned to SF user: louburnard Current user is: lb42

[TEITechnicalCouncil]

• priority: 5 --> 7

Original comment by: @sydb

[TEITechnicalCouncil]

• assigned_to: nobody --> louburnard
• status: open --> pending

Original comment by: @lb42

[TEITechnicalCouncil]

Logged In: YES user_id=1312539

This Tracker item was closed automatically by the system. It was previously set to a Pending status, and the original submitter did not respond within 14 days (the time period specified by the administrator of this Tracker).

Original comment by: sf-robot

[TEITechnicalCouncil]

• status: pending --> closed

Original comment by: sf-robot

[TEITechnicalCouncil]

Logged In: YES user_id=1021146

Reopened pending further discussion

Original comment by: @lb42

[TEITechnicalCouncil]

• status: closed --> open

Original comment by: @lb42

[TEITechnicalCouncil]

• milestone: --> TC

Original comment by: @lb42

[TEITechnicalCouncil]

Logged In: YES user_id=222320 Originator: NO

I dont quite see why you need app to record features of just one textual witness. That does not seem what this element is intended for.

Original comment by: @cwittern

[TEITechnicalCouncil]

Logged In: YES user_id=597407 Originator: YES

This seems to be a difference in manuscript editing practice (with multiple sources) and single source editing (such as epigraphy or papyrology). In the latter disciplines it is not uncommon to have an apparatus below the text--as in ms editions--but this apparatus will tend to contain different restorations and interpretations of a single text rather than MS variants. Sometimes an entry such as "l. 3, editiones, Bernard; editionum, P & H" might appear alongside one such as "l. 4, ab.[..., the final letter might be o or e", or even a comment such as "The final letters of every line are very badly worn."

Of course the use of <app> within a text to record variant readings is not affected by this argument, but the use of <app> to list variants and notes in an "apparatus" at the end of the text, marked-up externally, I believe is. I would like to be able to use the same element to tag each item in this list.

Original comment by: @gabrielbodard

[TEITechnicalCouncil]

Logged In: YES user_id=222320 Originator: NO

I acknowledge your point, but am still not convinced that <app> is the right thing for this use case, being tight as it is to multiple variant encoding. We already do have a whole set of tags for transcription of primary sources. What seems to be amiss is a way to gather them together in one place as "apparatus". But could this not be done with a <div type="apparatus"> somewhere, rather than using a specialized element?

Original comment by: @cwittern

[TEITechnicalCouncil]

Logged In: YES user_id=597407 Originator: YES

Right. We do use a div for this. But how to tag each item in the list? Some are <app>, clearly. Others are very similar kinds of comment or remark, just happening not to involve variants. All I am suggesting is that we make the content model a tiny bit less strict, to make <rdg> optional rather than required. 99% of such items include at least one reading or lemma; it seems cumbersome to have to use a different element (what, <note>?) for those few that do not. Messes with my xsl:for-each, for starters. ;-)

Original comment by: @gabrielbodard

[TEITechnicalCouncil]

Logged In: YES user_id=222320 Originator: NO

Well, having an <app> without a <rdg> should not really break anything. We already do allow the opposite, a <app> without <lem>, so you have managed to convinced me that this is not a bad thing after all. Great!

Christian

Original comment by: @cwittern

[TEITechnicalCouncil]

Logged In: YES user_id=1021146 Originator: NO

(a) As a consequence of a change made earlier today, <note> is now available immediately within <app>. (b) I have changed the content model so that an <app> can now contain:

- i. nothing at all

or any or all of the following

- ii. just globals (includes note)

• iii. a single lem, followed by globals and a wit
• iv. multiple rdgs or rdgGrps, each followed by globals and a wit

The one thing this won't permit is a solitary wit, without some indication of what it's supposed to be a wit of (a lem or rdg), which seems right to me.

Original comment by: @lb42

[TEITechnicalCouncil]

• status: open --> closed

Original comment by: @lb42