Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 32, No. 478. Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London Hosted by King's Digital Lab www.dhhumanist.org Submit to: email@example.com Date: 2019-02-19 18:51:50+00:00 From: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: [Humanist] 32.471: coda to the McGann-Renear debate On 2/19/19, Hugh Cayless wrote: > But I’d push back hard against the idea that digital editions are pointless > unless easier. I want there to be space for doing digital editions that are just > as rigorous as their print analogues and at the same time *better* for being > digital. Specifically, I want a world where students are not required to cross > over into expensive, scarce print editions in order to do serious work; where > the first edition they encounter online might be the *best* edition. What this seems to imply for me is that print editions are *best*, and that seeking for an archetype using a scientific method is the hallmark of what makes a great digital edition also. I actually think the digital medium calls into question the whole idea of "rigour". If manuscript editions were not especially rigorous why should digital editions be so? Didn't the truly scientific methods of editing arise only with print? I don't mean that textual criticism did not exist before print, but it was not the same thing. The requirement that only one version of a text could be represented drove the whole design and method of print. The immense changes brought about by digital media: from stable->ephemeral, immutable->flexible, expensive->cheap, lifeless->interactive must have a profound effect on what makes a good digital edition. I don't think it should just be a copy of a print edition that is "*better* for being digital". And to counterpoint your assertion that this is the strength of TEI, I think it is actually its weakness: historically a print system of hierarchies, nested headings, chapters, paragraphs, and formats gave rise to tagging systems: the elements and attributes are actually the old functions and parameters of explicit print instructions (e.g. .indent 10) that gradually evolved into "generalised" markup. Go back in time step by step and you will see that it is so. So print is still embodied in GML->SGML->XML. If we truly want to make *digital* editions we have to get off the train and hire a scooter, and go where we want, not to where the old technology tells us we must keep going. Desmond Schmidt eResearch Queensland University of Technology On 2/19/19, Humanist
wrote: > Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 32, No. 471. > Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London > Hosted by King's Digital Lab > www.dhhumanist.org > Submit to: email@example.com > > Date: 2019-02-19 02:20:03+00:00 > From: Hugh Cayless > Subject: Re: [Humanist] 32.467: the McGann-Renear debate > > I think it’s unlikely this over-extended argument can have a resolution, so > we > should probably drop it. I have my reservations about Desmond’s theory of > editing layers, but for the record, I’m fully in support of folks who want > to > publish open access editions using techniques other than TEI. I’m > sympathetic to > the resource constraints faced by many among us, as well as the gaps that > have > been created by our tendency to focus on canonical works. Efficiently > addressing > those gaps is vital, and while TEI might be a useful tool in your kit, it > also > might not be, depending on your circumstances. > > But I’d push back hard against the idea that digital editions are pointless > unless easier. I want there to be space for doing digital editions that are > just > as rigorous as their print analogues and at the same time *better* for > being > digital. Specifically, I want a world where students are not required to > cross > over into expensive, scarce print editions in order to do serious work; > where > the first edition they encounter online might be the *best* edition. I see a > big > role for TEI there. I see it as a powerful tool precisely because it can > accommodate more than one view of the text at the same time. And because, > despite its associations with the OHCO theory, it is not in thrall to any > particular hierarchical model of text. > > All the best, > Hugh -- Dr Desmond Schmidt Mobile: 0481915868 Work: +61-7-31384036 _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted List posts to: firstname.lastname@example.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.