Until now I have simply encoded my translations (in the few cases that I have made them) with the standard LBP schema. But is a separate schema for translations warranted? Are the content and structure of the two things sufficiently different to call for a separate schema?
Of course all the critical apparatus material is not really relevant (may it be in some cases?), but there's no problem in not using it.
On the other hand it might be useful to have a different protocol for making notes on content and translation than what is provided now by LBP schema where you would probably just use the critical apparatus features (by an <app>MUST have a <rdg> as child, a problem in a translation).
Until now I have simply encoded my translations (in the few cases that I have made them) with the standard LBP schema. But is a separate schema for translations warranted? Are the content and structure of the two things sufficiently different to call for a separate schema?
Of course all the critical apparatus material is not really relevant (may it be in some cases?), but there's no problem in not using it.
On the other hand it might be useful to have a different protocol for making notes on content and translation than what is provided now by LBP schema where you would probably just use the critical apparatus features (by an
<app>MUST have a<rdg>as child, a problem in a translation).So arguments for or against?