Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Complete / partial stemma #82

Open
Jean-Baptiste-Camps opened this issue Sep 25, 2021 · 12 comments
Open

Complete / partial stemma #82

Jean-Baptiste-Camps opened this issue Sep 25, 2021 · 12 comments
Assignees

Comments

@Jean-Baptiste-Camps
Copy link
Member

To facilitate extraction, we should probably add a field to state if the stemma is complete (all known tradition), partial (we could differentiate: partial - sub-branch of the full tradition, partial - descripti removed, partial - derivatives omitted, or source text omitted for the case of translations, prosifications, etc.) and complete.

(following the discussion at our session at EADH2021).

@GusRiva
Copy link
Contributor

GusRiva commented Sep 27, 2021

I think this is a good idea.
The categories of derivatives and source text are contentious, though. I wouldn't consider a stemma to be "partial" because it does not include derivatives. Maybe it should be the other way around, a subcategory of "complete": "complete- plus derivatives", "complete - plus source text" ?

@Jean-Baptiste-Camps
Copy link
Member Author

Could we have three categories, then:

  • partial
  • complete
  • complete-with-derivatives/source-text

?

@Jean-Baptiste-Camps
Copy link
Member Author

@gabays

@GusRiva
Copy link
Contributor

GusRiva commented Sep 30, 2021

I like the idea of having some subcategories for partial, as you suggested:

  • partial - sub-branch
  • partial - descripti removed,

@Jean-Baptiste-Camps
Copy link
Member Author

Oh my, I've already raised this issue two months earlier in #66
After the next Guidelines update, we should integrate this as the next data model task.

@Jean-Baptiste-Camps
Copy link
Member Author

Ok, let's summarize our contributions from both issues:

If I merge your two suggestions, @GusRiva , and mine, I arrive at the following:

  • scope: "partial(branch)" => includes only one branch of the known tradition
  • scope: "partial(selected)" => does not include all extant manuscripts, only the main ones for textual criticism (e.g., descripti removed, etc.)
  • scope: "partial(incomplete)" => involuntarily incomplete, because it does not include manuscripts found after the date, or incomplete for any other reason not contemplated in the other categories.
  • scope: "complete" => the full known tradition of the text (from original or archetype to all extant witnesses).
  • scope:"extended" (alternativerly complete-with-derivatives/source-text") => same as the above, but also including the tradition of the text/work with its derivatives (ancient translations, rewritings, etc.).

I have just an hesitation about partial(incomplete, because most of the time the information will not be available in the source itself… But it is precious.

@GusRiva
Copy link
Contributor

GusRiva commented Nov 2, 2021

I agree that partial(incomplete) can be problematic, but, as you say, it is very important information. I would include it as a category.

About extended: does it always imply complete? Could there be a stemma with sources or translations, but only a partial(selected) stemma of the main text. Maybe extended should be an optional addition to one of the others? Like complete|extended or partial(selected)|extended.

@Jean-Baptiste-Camps
Copy link
Member Author

extended(complete) and extended(partial) ? It starts to be quite a lot of subcategories, yet it is more precise like this.

Alternatively, we can add a second separate field:

  • source text/derivatives: included
  • source text/derivatives: selected
  • source text/derivatives: excluded
  • source text/derivatives: not applicable (default).

@GusRiva
Copy link
Contributor

GusRiva commented Nov 2, 2021

Yes, I am also getting worried that it might get too complex, but hopefully we can keep it in a way that is useful and understandable.

I tend towards making two different fields, as they are two independent features of the stemma. I can imagine that in most research questions one might want to exclude the extended stemmata. At the same time, there might be some research questions that want only the extended ones. So having a special field makes that easier.

@Jean-Baptiste-Camps
Copy link
Member Author

Jean-Baptiste-Camps commented Feb 25, 2022

TODO:

  • Gus -> workflow and TEI

  • JB -> edit Github.io (form, Guidelines)

  • Both: examinate already existing stemmata

@Jean-Baptiste-Camps
Copy link
Member Author

  • sourceText: not applicable (default) | included | selected | excluded
  • derivatives: not applicable (default) | included | selected | excluded

@Jean-Baptiste-Camps
Copy link
Member Author

Ok, all is left would be to retro-correct existing stemmata on this point.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants