#116 "Gentle Introduction" is out of date

[Tom Elliott]

I don't think the text in http://www.stoa.org/epidoc/gl/latest/intro-eps.html has changed much since it was authored (principally by JF and CR) in 2006. There have been a number of structural and cross-reference changes that can be tracked in the repos, but the landscape of digital epigraphy it describes has changed. Moreover, it's description of current emphasis of development and signal projects is no longer accurate.

[BODARD Gabriel]

I see two, well maybe three, possible solutions to this, all of which have their attractions, although some are more feasible than others...

1. Talk to Charlotte and Julia, who are the authors of this document (other people have changed minor details, updated links, etc., in the intervening years), and ask if they are interested in a thorough revision of this document;
2. Consider this document a historical publication (it was never published anywhere outside of the EpiDoc Guidelines, right?) that should be stable and unchanged, so as to be citable, even if it falls less relevant as time goes on;
3. Consider this document an EpiDoc-owned entity, and take responsibility for making it continue to be true and as relevant as possible—also remember to keep updating the translated versions in parallel with any changes to the English.

The more I think about it, the more I am concerned about the historical stability question (under 2). At the very least, we should make sure there is an archived version that can continue to be cited (dated 2006). It may be that talking to Charlotte and Julia would lead to a strong consensus for either (2) or (3)--or both.

[Tom Elliott]

I will undertake to consult with the original authors about what we should do and what if anything they would like to do of that. Goal is to have disposition of the original at least sorted by next release.

[BODARD Gabriel]

The Gentle Introduction is considered locked, "Flanders-Roueché 2006," and will not be updated except for fixing links etc. This is something toward which we might point skeptics, but not otherwise a training or guidelines document.

Emmanuelle will look through the current text, and copy out any points that seem to be useful to the EpiDoc Guidelines as a whole, perhaps to be included in General Introduction.

[Scott Vanderbilt]

Bumped -> Future.

[Emmanuelle Morlock]

I agree that the first part of the text, seems related to an "era" where people had to understand the limitations of tradictional typographic conventions.

I think last two section are still relevant for giving context about the EpiDoc endeavour. I would consider just keeping these two, plus deleting or updating the list of project example projects at the end.
Some info about EDAG, the fact that releases are regularly offered, the markup list and all the community work could be added there... plus a general call to participate -- maybe a link to epigraphy.info as a sister community, and also a selection of links to the sunoikisis classes that can be very useful for beginners.

The page could be renamed 'More about EpiDoc as a TEI customization for Epigraphy and ancient documents"

In brief:

1. keep the first sentence : "The concepts behind EpiDoc bring together, for epigraphers, traditional and entirely modern editorial methods and conventions."
2. cut the section "Epigraphic conventions" (entirely)
3. Keep the second section "TEI for Epigraphers: What is it, why use it?" as is.
4. Keep third section "The EpiDoc Customization: TEI for Epigraphers" but rename it "TEI for Epigraphers: The EpiDoc Customization"
5. cut or update the last two paragraphs (from "Further areas under active exploration" to the end.)
6. add info about community work... and call to participate

[BODARD Gabriel]

I think the conclusion from discussion today is that we don't really need to copy any parts of the "Introduction for Epigraphers" into the EpiDoc general introduction, given that the Roueché/Flanders-2006 version will still exist. (Where? In Guidelines? Separately archived?) Should be able to close the ticket therefore.

[BODARD Gabriel]

@gethia Do you have an opinion as to where/if we should continue to archive to Intro for Epigraphers document? I could for example offer to host a stable version as a publication in the Stoa journal, dated "2020 (2006)," and then we wouldn't need to worry about changing the version in the GLs in the future. But the ticket is assigned to you: did you want to do something else with it? (Or shall we close it?)

[Elli Mylonas]

Archive static copy of 2006 version in Stoa. Note that on Guidelines version.

[BODARD Gabriel]

Gabby will contact Roueché and Flanders, and plan to archive the 2006 version of this document on blog.stoa.org.

[BODARD Gabriel]

Charlotte and Julia are agreed that the 2006 (2021) version of the intro for epigraphers should be archived at Stoa Review under their names, and the version now in the Guidelines can be revised/updated/added to by the EpiDoc community without limitation. (We might return to @gethia's comments above re such revision.) I will undertake to make the archived copy this week, and then close this ticket.

[BODARD Gabriel]

Archive now up at https://blog.stoa.org/archives/4084.