Hi
Einhard Leichtfuß schrieb am 09.09.2020, 22:40 +0200:
To all of the remaining questions I can live without an answer (for
now); I have either found an answer myself or decided on / guessed some
probably ok answer.
I hope to be able to show you a preliminary TEI version this week.
Maybe you could have a look on that at some point.
C.12) Grouping of homographs
* In brief: Is superEntry ok?
[…]Note that I currently target version 1.8.1 exclusively.
v1.8.1: 197,766 lines
devel: 205,287 lines
I actually like the TEI Lex-0 standard, in particular:[…]
i) b) from above: a fixed listed of good @type's (see the
comparison table at [10]). How would I represent
@type="textType" (e.g. bibl., poet., admin., journalese) or
@type="attitude" (e.g. derog., euph.), which do not have an
equivalent in the TEI suggested @type's?
? Should I just use these as suggested in TEI Lex-0, thereby
creating a mixture between TEI and TEI Lex-0?
It all boils down to somebody reading the document, defining our specific
requirements and potentially modification **and** implementing it.
I intend to use the TEI Lex-0 guidelines as a supplement to TEI
Freedict, that is, wherever they do not conflict.
A.5) Quantified (or similar) usage annotations
* Ex.: "mainly Am."
* Ex.: "bes. Süddt.", "especially Am."
? How to represent the determiner?
What is the determiner here? I thought determiner are for componound
phrases
such as lemmon tree.
"mainly", "bes.", "especially". I thought these were determiners.
Sorry, I missed the point. I was unsure about determina and read up the
Wikipedia article, but apparently the wrong one. There is no encoding for
this
ATM, I think. What is the Lex-0 suggestion? :) Isn't this anyway part of the
usage? I
probably would have picked `<usg type="hint">mainly am.</usg>`, but maybe
that's too vague.
TEI Lex-0 suggests to use an attribute, but not which (there is a TODO
in the docs). None of the <usg> annotations really fit IMO, maybe @subtype?
[…]A.6) Dialect / language annotations.
a) Ex.: "[Br.]", "[Am.]", "[Ös.]", "[Sächs.]"
b) Ex.: "[South Africa]", "[Hessen]", "[Berlin]", "[Wien]"
d) Ex.: "[French]", "[Lat.]"
? Represent as <usg type="geographic">?
* According to TEI Lex-0: "marker which identifies the place or
region where a lexical unit is mainly used"
* Matches c) only.
? Separate d)? And represent how?
In any case, I see subtle differences and would suggest either to
be sloppy and group all these as a sort of geographic identifier (only
French/Lat. don't fit)
What to do with French/Lat. then?
What about picking one of
https://tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-usg.html ;?
By <https://tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/DI.html#DITPUS>, it
should be @type=lang.
If I understand this slightly confusing page, it would in principle fine to
choose any type. If that were the case, I would at least document the choice
in the TEI header. I just checked the dict style sheets: they ignore the type
completely ;). It is really a parsing help, which strengthens the argument to
document your choice in the header.
Regarding where to document: in the fileDesc tag, you can have a noteStmt:
```xml
<notesStmt>
<note type="status">small</note> <!-- mandatory for our DB -->
<note xml:lang="de"> <!-- can be freely chosen -->
<list><item>blah</list>
</note>
</notesStmt>
You can use both paragraphs (p) or lists as above and have multiple notes. I
think you can add this straight away.
So I would just add plain text, such as
<item>@type="lang" indicates a language</item> ?
A.9.2) DateIn publicationStmt, there can be:
* The Ding is annotated with both a version and a date.
? How/whether to represent the date?>
<date when="2017-11-18">Nov 18, 2017</date>
Shouldn't this be the date of generation of the TEI file, which is
distinct from the Ding's publication?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature