Home | About | Subscribe | Search | Member Area |
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 34, No. 127. Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London Hosted by King's Digital Lab www.dhhumanist.org Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org [1] From: philomousos@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Humanist] 34.125: annotating notation (23) [2] From: Robert Delius RoyarSubject: 3D annotating notation (38) [3] From: Desmond Schmidt Subject: Re: [Humanist] 34.125: annotating notation (39) --[1]------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: 2020-06-21 00:56:16+00:00 From: philomousos@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Humanist] 34.125: annotating notation I'm afraid I can't parse Desmond Schmidt's response, which seems intended not to answer my questions by diverting our attention to modes of attack on a technology I last remember using 15 years ago (and didn't think much of then). Silence is probably best. Peter Robinson's further explanation of the Textual Communities system reminds me rather of the Homer Multitext project (http://www.homermultitext.org/#_navigation) with which I think he shares some aims, namely digital editions that are an exploration of the shape of a textual tradition rather than an editor's distillation of that tradition. Casey Dué's book Achilles Unbound (https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/6910) is a nicely accessible recent discussion of aspects of the Homeric tradition, and talks about some of the nontechnical parts of the project. More technical detail is available in their blog posts. As I recall, the project treats documents as "ordered hierarchies of citable objects", with identifiers allocated down to the token level, and uses RDF to describe relations between the citations, so that the use of (e.g.) formulas can be tracked, and the ways the texts are reshaped in different versions can be described. HMT, incidentally, does an admirable job of engaging undergraduate students in research, one of many reasons I am a fan of it. All the best, Hugh --[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: 2020-06-20 19:21:56+00:00 From: Robert Delius Royar Subject: 3D annotating notation As has been noted in the discussion regarding what way best to annotate and represent digital artifacts for scholarly purposes, the focus has been entangled in the language and view of books. Further, it has tended to emphasize traditional 2D elements. So, I would like to know about efforts in digital humanities to provide 3D-printed facsimiles of artifacts such as the Hengwrt Chaucer (since it has been raised in a description of practical existing, practical applications. Reading the discussion in this thread sparked my interest in wondering whether we might already have these types of facsimile works (as I believe there are for archeology), and if we did, how the annotation/markup system would work with regard to erasure (e.g. on vellum) and other emendations/degradations. One source I found that discusses these issues is Dahlström, M. "Copies and facsimiles." International Journal of Digital Humanities, volume 1, pages 195-208(2019): "Several recent editing projects even go to considerable lengths to accommodate the need for and interest in graphical information about the source documents, and they display the entire source document, as it were, i.e. not just the sections of the document bearing text, but also covers, margins, blank pages, etc. In fact, this is an area in which we are only beginning to take the first steps to go beyond the textual transcription and the 2D flat graphical reproduction to represent the source document and to provide a large array of access and views: 3D simulations of the material object or minute photographs down to a microscopic, molecular level to serve analyses of cellulose, skin nerves, and fibers (Björk 2015, 197). And in the other direction, vast amounts of abstracted information in the form of linked data to serve various kinds of work at the macro level." https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42803-019-00017-5 -- Robert Delius Royar Caught in the net since 1985 --[3]------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: 2020-06-20 10:08:49+00:00 From: Desmond Schmidt Subject: Re: [Humanist] 34.125: annotating notation Peter, This is more informative but returns to things I never understood about the Kahn-Wilensky object identifiers mentioned in your papers on the subject. I have a few questions about that which I hope you will now elucidate. 1. Your identifiers are key-value pairs separated by colons. Where do these key names such as "entity", "part", "line", "linespace" come from? You say you infer their values by reading the n-attribute of certain elements, but it is unclear to me where all the key names come from. For example, how exactly do you know you are in a "part" called "GP" or in a "document" called "Canterbury Tales"? Are these key-names determined arbitrarily by your XML ingestion program or is there some way to specify them more generally? 2. Is it true that for your model to work the values of various properties that become parts of the identifier have to be manually added to the XML file beforehand? If so it would seem to be a big up-front cost before new texts can be properly ingested in the system. For example, you are saying that individual lines are labelled in both the document and entity trees, and the line-numbers of those two trees often will not correspond, so you will have to label all of them manually, no? 3. Are the identifiers for entities ever used? Isn't it the case for a query regarding the location of some text in a particular manuscript, or the number of manuscripts that have that particular line, etc., that all you need to do is query the text fragments collection, which, being at the bottom of the tree, is the most fully specified? 4. Aren't the key components of your reference system themselves subject to variation? What happens if a line is split into two in one manuscript, or if two sections are merged into one? You seem to assume that there is a global identification system with a fixed granularity across the work that can be used in every document that represents it. Desmond _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted List posts to: humanist@dhhumanist.org List info and archives at at: http://dhhumanist.org Listmember interface at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted/ Subscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/membership_form.php
Editor: Willard McCarty (King's College London, U.K.; Western Sydney University, Australia)
Software designer: Malgosia Askanas (Mind-Crafts)
This site is maintained under a service level agreement by King's Digital Lab.