Indicate certainty of app reading with @cert

[stenskjaer]

Take this:

I have encoded this as follows:

Probatio consequentiae:
<app>
  <lem>quia</lem>
  <rdg wit="#L" type="correction-substitution">
    <subst>
      <del>quando</del>
      <add place="above-line">quia</add>
    </subst>
  </rdg>
</app>
non est dubium

But I am not entirely sure that the addition of the "quia" above the line actually indicates that the scribe wants to substitute it with the "quando". So what I am in doubt of is the whole reading, not mere the reading of one of the words (if I were in doubt about the reading of fx. "quando", I could wrap that in <unclear>.

So my first idea would be to wrap the whole reading in <unclear> like so:

Probatio consequentiae:
<app>
  <lem>quia</lem>
  <rdg wit="#L" type="correction-substitution">
    <unclear>
      <subst>
        <del>quando</del>
        <add place="above-line">quia</add>
      </subst>
    </unclear>
  </rdg>
</app>
non est dubium

But that gives a lot of possibly problematic conditions in the processing (every <rdg> element must be checked for a wrapped <unclear>. So why not just use the @cert attribute on the reading.

I would suggest that rdg MAY have @cert with one of the following three values: high, medium, or low. The default is none.

This would make the following encoding viable:

Probatio consequentiae:
<app>
  <lem>quia</lem>
  <rdg wit="#L" type="correction-substitution" cert="medium">
    <subst>
      <del>quando</del>
      <add place="above-line">quia</add>
    </subst>
  </rdg>
</app>
non est dubium

I find this to be both clear, semantically clean and in accordance with the intention of the TEI Guidelines (http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-rdg.html).

It would be possible to also use it on the lem with a slightly different semantics, as that would modify the certainty of the choice of established text rather than a reading.

Any thoughts???

EDIT: Maybe I should add that I am using it currently in some of my editions, to try testing the idea.

[lucianacioca]

I'm not sure I understand when exactly should we use the cert attribute. So if there are some uncertainties with the reading, we add cert=high/medium/low, if there is no doubt as to what the reading is for, we don't add the attribute?

[stenskjaer]

So far it's only a suggestion. We need to agree on whether we want to add it to the next version of the LombardPress specification.

But what I thought was to add it when you are unsure about the what actually is going on in a reading.

If you are unsure about what a given word is, we would normally use <unclear>.

But what I am in doubt about here is whether the "quando" with "quia" above is actually to be interpreted as an example of a "correction-substitution". And hence the indication of certainty on the rdg element in stead of just parts of it.

Make sense?

[lucianacioca]

It does, yes. But if the certainty of a reading is high, why the need to express the attribute at all? Or does 'high' suggest a type of certainty that is not entirely certain? How do we compare a reading that has no cert attribute and one that has a cert=high value?

[stenskjaer]

My first thought was that "high" is not the same as 100% sure. So if no cert, then there is absolutely no doubt (to the editor) about the type of reading. If you select cert='high', you are pretty sure, but maybe not 100% sure.

But we might also agree that "high" is the default, and that to not indicate any cert is the same as indicating cert='high'. It's up to us what we think would be most intuitive and clear.

[lucianacioca]

Ah, I see. So the very presence of the cert attribute is indicative of a doubtful reading, but with its respective degrees. I think this could work.