erc-dharma / project-documentation

DHARMA Project Documentation
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
3 stars 3 forks source link

how to encode other digital editions in bibliography #137

Open arlogriffiths opened 3 years ago

arlogriffiths commented 3 years ago

@ajaniak and @danbalogh :

in DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00054.xml, I have

<bibl n="B"><ptr target="bib:???"/><!-- Daniel Balogh's Siddham edition --></bibl>

How do you suggest I fill in this entry and how do you suggest I encore variant readings from Dan's Siddham edition in my apparatus, in order to be able to obtain the siglum B in the display?

Is this scenario already addressed in the EGD?

danbalogh commented 3 years ago

This still needs to be worked out. See "Indicating the earlier digital edition in the bibliography" in the EGD appendix on assimiliting earlier digital editions. But indeed, it is relevant beyond simple assimilation. I hope @ajaniak can suggest good practice for referring to a digital edition. The particular problem in the case of Siddham is that I don't think these editions have a URI.

ajaniak commented 3 years ago

In the case of Siddham, they have a sort of permalink that could be used to provide a clean url.

I don't think the projects we will be quoting have built API to expose the data (at least it is not the case for Campa and EIAD, and couldn't find one for siddham either). I will look to see if we could eventually use Zenodo API to achieve this - like Zotero, we would need to store the data inside the database at some point.
For now, we will have to find a new to build a citation. I see 4 solutions and most are hybrid:

1- We provide all the information as a full bibliographic citation with more or less information and more or less structurz depending what you expect, using <ptr/> to provide the link or even under the form of <ref>element.

2- we create a Zotero entry for projects with the main information, probably under the ItemType Software to have access to the necessary fields, and we provide only specific data inside the <bibl> element such as the title of the inscription for instance and its URI or permalink (or the simple url, for projects without those). Pros: it is an adaptation of the current system but not sure it will precise enough.

3- A third solution could be to establish a list of the inscriptions of previous projects. In this case, with a prefix and the ID of the inscription, we could be able to retrieve all the information - a little as the txt: system for the authority of the manuscripts and could be understood ad a mapping of some sort. And all you would have to add are the <citedRange> elements and a content to the <ptr>element. Cons: it supposes to handle an external file with all the references, it can be generated automatically but on a long term it will be more prone to breakage, especially if we redirect to websites without permalink or uri. Pros: it is also close to the current encoding pattern.

4- For Campa and EIAD, with @alevivier, we have choose to follow TEI recommandations about reusing digital files. So part of the original <teiHeader> have been kept in the DHARMA file. So theoretically, we can retrieve all the information from the file itself if we feed the ID of the inscription in the <ptr>, even though it will be stable only if every file is feed into a coherent system. In the case of EIAD and Campa, no permalink nor URI are really available, so it could be a short cut or even just a simple fallback behaviour if the link break. We might need to rework a little what have been kept and how we have stored it to enhance the results and make it match your expectations. In this case also, you will be able to provide <citedRange>elements. The main concerns about this solution is that is not a generic one for all digital editions, it will only work for digital editions reused in the project with metadata available and structured.

I guess I need to know what your expectations are for those quotes: what information do you want and with which behaviours?

arlogriffiths commented 5 months ago

Was this discussion actually ever completed? I think not, so I reopen this issue.