Comments on: TEI Encoding, or What Am I Doing?

By: Nigel Lepianka

Nigel Lepianka — Sun, 13 May 2012 03:57:38 +0000

Michael, those are great questions, I think I’ll consider those as I continue to work on my paper. The question of “when do we want neutrality?” is especially good, since I’m interested in whether or not interpretation versus unbiased encoding are two different parts or the same part of the encoding process; can you have one without the other and it still be a good piece of encoding?

By: Michael Gossett

Michael Gossett — Thu, 10 May 2012 15:58:38 +0000

And if I could add to *THAT*–I wonder whether encoding is not more akin translation than it is to editing/glossing.

For instance, could there be two different encodings of _Frankenstein_, one by a Shelleyist, another by a Miltonist? And would each lend us something different, so much so that if one were interested in Shelley, primarily, s/he could choose a ‘translation’ that included Percy and Mary’s hands, doodles in the margins, notes from P. to M., etc.; whereas if one were interested in Milton primarily, s/he could choose one that marked creation imagery, monster/Satan imagery, quotations from ‘Paradise Lost,’ etc.?

The questions would then be “When do we want neutrality?” and “When do we want selection/interpretation?” “When should the coders be anonymous?” and “When do we *really need to know* who the coders are?”

By: Allison Wyss

Allison Wyss — Sat, 05 May 2012 01:35:02 +0000

As Phil also points out, you bring up the important issue of neutrality–of how the coders mediate the text. And you also point out that the printed texts we read are mediated too–they are edited and introduced and glossed and footnoted. It seems to me that an important difference is the relative transparency of a printed text’s mediation. We get the name of the editor on the book, so we never forget who is bringing in those footnotes. Do we get the names of the encoder who makes each tag? Maybe I’m quibbling here. Maybe the name on the printed edition doesn’t personally make every single decision? I’m not sure. And I suppose the team who makes the encoding “rules” (is that the schema?) will be acknowledged. Yet, even with those rules, won’t many judgment calls still fall to an unnamed coder? Perhaps not. But without a name attached to each coding decision, it feels like the resulting coded text might be presenting itself as more neutral than it can ever be. I don’t really expect a neutral edition–I just want the best effort to be made at acknowledging bias–perhaps one more thing to tag!

By: Philip Stewart

Philip Stewart — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:11:57 +0000

Nigel,

Extreme time pressure prevent my fully engaging this post right now, but:

(1) Great graphic with the dog!
(2) I think raising the question of neutrality in encoding is right on. Mixed with the question of knowing what one is doing, our responsibility at a mediating step in representing the manuscript is constantly in mind.

Merits more discussion. Right there with my fascination is anxiety. Hope to find time to absorb, reflect, and comment further.

Phil