Menu
▾
▴
#610 "lem" used in a confusing way in CriticalApparatus.xml
closed-fixed
None
5(default)
2014-06-30
2013-10-17
No
Guidelines/en/TC-CriticalApparatus.xml
/div/div[1]/div[2]/p[3]
, or to make clear, in cases of ambiguity, precisely which portion of the main text the variation applies to
=>
(delete and insert "or" before "to indicate")
(I do not understand where the ambiguity comes from: the app element obviously wraps up the text with variation.)
We think Jens is asking that we change the following sentence in 12.1.2, :
"The lem element may also be used, under some circumstances, to record the base text of the source edition, to mark the readings of a base witness, to indicate the preference of an editor or encoder for a particular reading, or to make clear, in cases of ambiguity, precisely which portion of the main text the variation applies to."
to:
"The lem element may also be used, under some circumstances, to record the base text of the source edition, to mark the readings of a base witness, to indicate the preference of an editor or encoder for a particular reading, or to indicate precisely which portion of the main text the variation applies to."
In other words, to replace "or to make clear, in cases of ambiguity" with "or to indicate"
Do we understand the initial request correctly?
Council subgroup proposes to delete the whole final clause of the sentence: "...or to indicate precisely which portion of the main text the variation applies to." Brett Barney will investigate whether this is appropriate, and if so, implement.
Last edit: Rebecca Welzenbach 2013-11-13
No, sorry for being so unclear: what puzzles me is the whole last clause -I do not not see how there can be any ambiguity as to where variation occurs inside an app element and how a lem could possibly make this any clearer. What I suggest is:
"The lem element may also be used, under some circumstances, to record the base text of the source edition, to mark the readings of a base witness, or to indicate the preference of an editor or encoder for a particular reading."
That is exactly our proposed solution to the ticket.
Changed at revision 12616
In <http://sourceforge.net/p/tei/bugs/610/>,
"The lem element may also be used, under some circumstances, to record the base text of the source edition, to mark the readings of a base witness, to indicate the preference of an editor or encoder for a particular reading, or to indicate precisely which portion of the main text the variation applies to."
has been changed to
"The lem element may also be used, under some circumstances, to record the base text of the source edition, to mark the readings of a base witness, or to indicate the preference of an editor or encoder for a particular reading."
based on a ticket I made.
I now have doubts about this. Since I only use the Parallel Segmentation Method myself, I did not think of the use of <lem> in the Location-referenced Method. Here
"In order to show explicitly what portion of the base text is replaced by the variant readings, the lem element may be used".
This is probably what was meant by "to indicate precisely which portion of the main text the variation applies to", and if this is the case, it should not be deleted.
I still think there is confusion because of the different uses of <lem> - in fact, more confusion than I originally thought. Probably the use of <lem> to indicate the expression the apparatus is keyed to is original, but there has to be some method to express the preference for a reading different from the base text, and I don't see how how this is possible according to the Location-referenced Method or the Double End-Point Attachment Method.
Reopening this in the light of Jens's comment. Brett, what do you think?
per JC @ meeting, assigned to HC
I added back a version of the original wording, to make it clear that in the case of external apparatus, lem can have the function of pointing to the precise location of textual variance. r12924.