[book] preliminary proofreading remarks

[tuurma]

• [x] ib.

ib. works better than it did before but is still not perfect. As I said before, it should only refer to the immediately preceding reference. At the moment, it often refers back to an earlier reference which is followed by a second reference in brackets (e.g. Σαβῖνα 25 and 26 and 27). It also does not work where a reference is bracketed or linked by + or = or cf. (e.g. Σαβῖνα 28 and 29; Σαββάτιος 2; Σαβεις 2 and 3).

• [x] ?= for both sides of the relationship

~~?= should appear for both the linked people (e.g. Σαβῖνος 64 and 65 where under 65 it should also read ?= 64). ~~

• [ ] more than 2 people linked ?= (extracted to #289)

Where there are more than two people linked, it is more complicated - e.g. Σαββιων 2, 3, and 4 where 3 and 4 are correctly linked to 2, but 2 needs to be linked to 3 and 4, so reading ?= (3) (4).

• [x] RE

RE is still not italicised.

fixed changing entry for RE / Rhodian Eponyms, so it doesn't get mixed in resolving bibl. abbreviation

• [x] Resapha

Resapha II outputs as Resapha II II (e.g. Σαβα 1, Σαβας 30).

• [x] imperial

imperial still occurs here and there (e.g. Σαβειος 2)

will be fixed with #287

• [x] formatting of details field in bibl

Small Roman numerals (not small caps) should be used for book numbers in literary sources (possibly elsewhere) - e.g. Σαβίκτας 1 Arr., An. ii 4. 2, Σαβινιανός 15 Socr., HE iii 25.

• [x] duplicates (extracted to #288)

Σελαμανης 9 and 11 are duplicates, listed under slightly different headings. However, when I checked in the system, there is in fact only a single entry. So, somehow that entry is being output twice. This obviously is a concern if it is in some way a systematic issue

(...) single person outputting 3 times (Σέργις 102, 107, 109: P108945f0-5193-4546-99df-389dbb738899; 103, 108, 111: P495d2786-5b38-454a-9235-9b114e0e5350). In the former case, the person also has an alternative place of origin, which should appear in the final bracket but does not. In the latter case, I think it may have to do with people from places where the "Group under" tool has been applied

(...) Σέργις I have noted several more false duplicates (116 & 118; 128 & 130) where the problem seems to be caused by both being entered as territ.? in the original forms.

• [x] missing entries

famous Σαλώμη, daughter of Herod, did not appear as an entry. She is the only one of this name which is accented, the others are plain Σαλωμη. She is there in the system but for some reason has not output. Is there a more general problem with names spelled the same, only differentiated by accent or the absence of accent, or conceivably accented in a different way?

• [x] relationships missing

sometimes the relationship (f. m. s. d.) is not expressed, though the relation does appear. Example Σέργις 37 (Pe5a06077-faf4-4ff1-8178-cc1ac513c397).

[michaelzellmann]

Please find here further remarks on reading the proofs for the letter Φ, marked as comments in the PDF Φ.pdf

[tuurma]

Missing Σαλώμη and her accented sisters found, indeed it was due to the difference in accenting. This is now fixed and all names, regardless of diacritics will be listed under a name heading, eg Σαλώμη and Σαλωμη together under Σαλωμη heading

[tuurma]

formatting of details field in bibl has been fixed - only first token is analyzed if it is a Roman numeral to be treated as a volume number

Small Roman numerals (not small caps) should be used for book numbers in literary sources (possibly elsewhere) - e.g. Σαβίκτας 1 Arr., An. ii 4. 2, Σαβινιανός 15 Socr., HE iii 25.

[tuurma]

relationships missing

sometimes the relationship (f. m. s. d.) is not expressed, though the relation does appear. Example Σέργις 38 (Pe5a06077-faf4-4ff1-8178-cc1ac513c397).

In the example relationships have no person ids, just names but in addition the person in question did not have a gender, which is why relationship failed to resolve and has been assumed not to appear in print. There are 48 entries without gender field filled in the database see

[michaelzellmann]

Gender field filled not filled in is a legitimate outcome that we will have to deal with, not necessarily a mistake: sometimes the gender is indeed unknown. I believe we represent this in print by "s./d." and "f./m." respectively i.e. “son or daughter of” (most cases) and “father or mother of”, but Richard could confirm.

On Apr 24, 2020, at 6:34 PM, Magdalena Turska notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

relationships missing

sometimes the relationship (f. m. s. d.) is not expressed, though the relation does appear. Example Σέργις 38 (Pe5a06077-faf4-4ff1-8178-cc1ac513c397).

In the example relationships have no person ids, just names but in addition the person in question did not have a gender, which is why relationship failed to resolve and has been assumed not to appear in print. There are 48 entries without gender field filled in the database.

[image]https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/449468/80240546-4b82c600-8662-11ea-8409-50a13db05262.png

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/eXistSolutions/LGPN/issues/285#issuecomment-619149995, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE55QHFATX2NI2TF2BMEAL3ROHERJANCNFSM4LG6G3PA.

[tuurma]

ib. works better than it did before but is still not perfect. As I said before, it should only refer to the immediately preceding reference. At the moment, it often refers back to an earlier reference which is followed by a second reference in brackets (e.g. Σαβῖνα 25 and 26 and 27). It also does not work where a reference is bracketed or linked by + or = or cf. (e.g. Σαβῖνα 28 and 29; Σαββάτιος 2; Σαβεις 2 and 3).

Σαβῖνα before

and after