Comments on: “How Can You Love a Work If You Don’t Know It?”: Six Lessons from Team MARKUP

By: kabiny prysznicowe piotrków

kabiny prysznicowe piotrków — Tue, 19 May 2015 19:30:16 +0000

lustra na wymiar piotrków…

See this lustra na wymiar for yourself.Glass furniture,building and much more in Piotrków Trybunalski…

By: lustra piotrków

lustra piotrków — Mon, 11 May 2015 07:39:35 +0000

lustra na wymiar piotrków…

See this lustra na wymiar for yourself.Glass furniture,building and much more in Piotrków Trybunalski…

By: lustra

lustra — Thu, 07 May 2015 14:35:49 +0000

lustra na wymiar piotrków…

See this lustra na wymiar for yourself.Glass furniture,building and much more in Piotrków Trybunalski…

By: Team MARKUP: Encoding Frankenstein for the Shelley-Godwin Archive - Technoromanticism

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 06:25:35 +0000

[...] the Schema (Amanda Visconti, cross-posted from here). How would we augment the SGA schema in terms of adding tags? I’ve started to think about ways [...]

By: Amanda Visconti

Amanda Visconti — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 21:40:58 +0000

That’s an awesome idea–I’ll have to play around with Frankenstein in Woodchipper to look for more markup ideas!

By: Allison Wyss

Allison Wyss — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 17:41:19 +0000

These ideas seem very much related to some of the discussion the other group has had about Wordchipper results. You have come up with a category or topic and then need to figure out which words count. We’re working in sort of the opposite direction, with the same ideas. The Woodchipper gives us a list of words and we figure out if it’s a valid topic, and what to call that topic. Sometimes, even after we are satisfied with our topic title, we still puzzle out why certain words that are included. My understanding of how Woodchipper determines the topics is extremely limited. (I really wish I understood it better.) However, that method might inform your thoughts in deciding which words count. If nothing else, it might be interesting to look at the words the chipper thinks are “monstrous,” and then, of course, decide the value of each word you find. Another interesting approach would be to come up with your own list, independent of Woodchipper, but then to compare that list to the category that Woodchipper finds.

By: Amanda Visconti

Amanda Visconti — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 18:17:21 +0000

Great point, Nigel. I think I’d want to encode these terms with a variable that indicated whether the monstrous word/phrase/section was in the final text, deleted, added, altered (e.g. with other text that softened the description), or suggested by Percy, then. I think the initial tags would help me identify ideas like yours that further categorize attitudes toward monstrosity–with your idea, we’d be both able to think about the novel’s attitudes toward monstrosity AND Mary Shelley’s attitude toward monstrosity during her writing process–pretty cool!

By: Nigel Lepianka

Nigel Lepianka — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:46:42 +0000

I think I’d like to add, Amanda, to the “ideas of Future Work” section, that when you add a new feature (is that the word I’m looking for?) to tag, the issues we encountered initially would resurface. If we went through and decided to tag mentions of monstrosity we would have to deal with how broadly we understand the term; would words like “fiendish” or “devilish” be tagged? What about other pejorative terms? As you said, it is subjective so these issues would probably be expected, but what about if we find instances of the word monster being crossed out? What do we do? Does it matter that it’s related to monstrosity because it is deleted, or should we count it even though it has no place in the published, final form of the novel? That’s the sort of issue I think encoders will encounter in subsequent additions to their work.

By: “How Can You Love a Work If You Don’t Know It?”: Six Lessons from Team MARKUP « Literature Geek

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 09:19:57 +0000

[...] This post is cross-posted from the Technoromanticism course blog. [...]