Apparatus Criticus
leiden
Structuring comments on the epigraphic text (tei:div type="apparatus")
Provides information on readings and conjectures. A portion of this is
captured in the markup (test this), so it can be generated. But the
apparatus criticus has to handle "out of line" or more general comments.
Perhaps stubs can be created for each line that has conjectures in a
CHET-C type conversion. This can then be edited by hand, the way CHET-C
output is. There also needs to be a provision for plain text sections,
which can appear interspersed with the more structured sections, or added to
the line stubs.
Refer to use of app in TEI. Refer to markup of text content in epidoc. Discussion of app on Markup and TEI-L, and new P5 content model based on our recommendations.
A structured apparatus criticus or epigraphic commentary may in principle consist of four types of entries:
- General comments on the text, not tied to a particular line or section; these may be tagged as note within app, but without linking information.
- Comments on a particular line or lines of the text; these should be linked to the lines in question using the mechanism specified: app loc="". The lem element is optional in this context; the comment should be contained in a note, either in the lem, if present, or in the app, if not.
- Record of variant readings or alternative restorations of problematic lines (this is the only meaning of apparatus as understood by the original tei:app element in P4, although P5 now explicitly permits our other usages); these items should be structured with app, lem, rdg, and possibly note elements.
- Record of an comment on variants or complex layered text, similar to 3. above, but calling on the content of an app or choice element in the tagged text. The app element should then contain only a ptr, with the id attribute of the target element in the ptr's target, and an optional note.
EpiDoc appearance with standard XSLT
The squeeze is faint and inadequate where the right-hand ends of lines is concerned.
The erasure in this line is indubitably deliberate but illegible.
- ἀμειβόμενοιἐ|γερσιβόαι rejected by Robertἀμειβόμενοι
- so Mommsen
Responsibility for this section
Gabriel Bodard
author
Tom Elliott
author
CVS Information
Revision number: $Revision: 1.7 $
Revision name (if any): $Name: r-5 $
Revision date: $Date: 2007/06/06 20:55:56 $
Revision committed by: $Author: gabrielbodard $