Closed scottkleinman closed 8 years ago
Bwahahaha.
I'm reanimating this issue because I have a related one, and because I have a suggestion about the above.
Suggestion: How about declaring something like #bioMaryDaughterofAnne
? The text doesn't name the three fathers, does it, so that we have no way of distinguishing between those three daughters. And any future references to them (if any) in the text may echo that ambiguity. Another possibility would be #bioMaryDaughterofAnne01
, ...02, and ...03. [I'm not addressing the probable need for nesting bio-entities.]
Related issue: The Laud 108 named-entities sample that I looked at (now I'm forgetting where) declares #bioAugustine0001
as referring to EITHER Hippo or Canterbury. Surely not? I am needing Augie myself for Junius 1, so I have declared Aug0001 to refer to Hippo only. If I need Canterbury (and I don't think I will), I plan to call him 0002. Is that okay with everyone?
I found my notes -- the blended Augustine declaration was in flyleaf-folio-iii-recto.xml.
#bioAugustine001: Saint Augustine of Hippo or Canterbury (Auestac is read as Austyn)
And to follow up: The Guidelines say that bio declarations are the first two letters of the surname (the example is #bioGO001
). Is that only for us, whereas our topics of study (Aug, Orm, St. Anne, etc.) get a full name?
At the time the Guidelines were written, I was thinking primarily of names of editors for the first two letters (just following a practice started by Sharon). I relaxed this for names within the texts but kept the "001"--not for any good reason. For places, I reduced it to "01". Generally, I have made the rest of the id the full name (e.g. Augustine0001
), sometimes with extra material like AugustineOfCanterbury0001
if I felt it necessary. But in the case of that particular name, I just used Augustine0001
. The @xml:id
has to be unique within the file, not across the whole corpus. Technically, it should be defined in the <teiHeader>
so that you know who the id refers to, but I have just done that in comments at the top of the file (see Edmund as an example). When all the files are combined, these can be consolidated and adjusted so that Augustine0001
always refers to Augustine of Canterbury and Augustine0002
to Augustine of Hippo (or vice versa). We'll then have to do a second consolidation of Laud Misc. 108 with Junius 1 to begin building a system of ids for the corpus as a whole. Editions of manuscripts in the future can then use ids assigned for the corpus, simplifying the process.
I believe that we are told who the fathers of the different Marys are, and I think I used that information in the end.
Okay, that's cool. Closing.
Consider the following (slightly edited) lines:
How would we handle the
@ref
, given that the name here refers to three separate entities?Side question: What was Anne thinking?