#113 Inline editorial correction of previous edition

[BODARD Gabriel]

Add example of inline editorial correction of previous editor (unrelated to "internal apparatus") to transcription index.

[Elli Mylonas]

Going back to this, not sure exactly what is required -
The index page has a link to Previous Editor which could be the page @gabrielbodard is refering to. But this isn't really about an editorial correction of a previous editor - it's about a reading a previous editor made which can no longer be read.
I can't find a page that refers to an editorial correction of a previous edtior, which might be missing from the index. Is the goal to create a new page demonstrating the markup for this case?
I seem to remember that we wanted to insert a reference to a page in the index (the former case) and not the latter.

[BODARD Gabriel]

Trying to reconstruct a conversation that we had a year ago: As @ellimylonas points out, the Previous Editor page is not about editorial correction, so doesn't help here.

At the moment, correction of a previous editor is only mentioned in two places in the guidelines: External Apparatus and Inline Apparatus —and only really illustrated by example there rather than discussed in detail. I think what we were asking for was a new page in the Transcription section of the Guidelines (i.e. a file named trans-*.xml) which explains how to mark up -- in the transcribed text -- a disagreement with an earlier editor/edition regardless of whether this is going to be transformed in an internal apparatus or via any other means. A page to explain markup, for people coming to the Guidelines from that direction.

(This should also be true of all the other types of markup described under supp-app-external, but I suspect most of the others are covered already.)

[Simona Stoyanova]

@ellimylonas, here are some examples from IOSPE vol 3:

http://iospe.kcl.ac.uk/3.7.html
http://iospe.kcl.ac.uk/3.7.html
http://iospe.kcl.ac.uk/3.141.html
http://iospe.kcl.ac.uk/3.145.html
http://iospe.kcl.ac.uk/3.161.html
http://iospe.kcl.ac.uk/3.252.html
http://iospe.kcl.ac.uk/3.346.html
http://iospe.kcl.ac.uk/3.45.html
http://iospe.kcl.ac.uk/3.597.html
http://iospe.kcl.ac.uk/3.62.html

[BODARD Gabriel]

I don't think these are examples of inline correction of previous editor though—IOSPE doesn't tag that inline, but in an external apparatus. As far as I can see, these inscriptions all include examples of text seen by a previous editor, which may be what you were thinking of? (But isn't what this ticket is about.)

[Scott Vanderbilt]

Bumped -> Future.

[Elli Mylonas]

@hcayless looks for example in Duke Databank. @ellimylonas does too.

[Hugh A. Cayless]

Here is a randomly chosen example from papyri.info:

<lb n="11"/><app type="editorial">
  <lem resp="BL 8.313"><supplied reason="lost"><g type="stauros"/> διʼ ἐμο</supplied>ῦ πανουφ<unclear>ίου</unclear></lem>
  <rdg><gap reason="lost" extent="unknown" unit="character"/> ὑπʼ <expan>Ἀνούφ<ex>εως</ex></expan></rdg>
</app> 
<gap reason="lost" extent="unknown" unit="character"/> 

Comments: The content of@resp should be a URL. @resp should be @source. There really should be a @source on the <rdg> too—what this means in DDbDP dialect is "The publication for which this edition is named had the reading in <rdg> and it has been updated here with the reading from the Berichtigungsliste (BL), which is what's in the <lem>".

[Elli Mylonas]

EM will take this on for 9.2

[BODARD Gabriel]

I guess my question here is should this be a subsection of Alternative Readings, or a new page? I'm starting to be inclined the the former… although the granular approach to the guidelines has tended to argue against that…

[BODARD Gabriel]

Added Hugh's example to a new page trans-alt-inline-editorial.xml (hopefully to appear on dev site soon, in time for checking before release 9.4). More examples wouldn't hurt.