From TEI-XML in Egyptology and Coptic Studies

Jump to: navigation, search

Morphosyntctic annotoation

fs and f elements

-- Handout S. Schweitzer --

Stand-off or inline?

Stand-off scetch:

<div type="transcription"> <s xml:id="S_23"><w xml:id="W_1112">...</w>...</s> </div>
<div type="annotation"> <fs xml:id="AN_1112"><f>...</f>...</fs></div>
<div type="translation"> <s xml:id="TR_23">...</s> </div>

Werningd (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I am in favor of the stand-off approach. It would even allow to split the individual layers into separate files/stores, if technically useful. And it would allow researchers to only deal with some annotation layers, e.g. some concentrating on hieroglyph encoding and others on linguistic analysis.

In Simon’s suggestion, we have graphics (layout-based hieroglyph codes), transcription and translation (with subtypes sentences and words). My remarks on that:

  • the words translation could possibly be dropped in favor of a dictionary based approach, given that the linked lemma carries translation information.
  • I like Daniel’s suggestion of having a separate annotation layer. This allows to separate the pure transcription and its linguistic analysis. TEI <span> would allow for such things:
<spanGrp type="morphology">
  <span from="#w1"><!-- one can use @from without @to for spans that reference exactly one element -->
      <f><!-- … --></f>

--Senereko (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Semantic annotation

This is probably related to the Thesauri working group. In general, I would suggest a linked data approach here. The thesauri should be made available as linkable resources, and the semantic annotation should use @ref in addition to/instead of @key.

--Senereko (talk) 10:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)