Source: email
Date: 01 Oct 2004 Keywords: FIGURE, HEAD
The question is whether to treat GREG. THAVMATVRGVS as a caption for the portrait or as a head for the biography, when technically it was produced (by engraving) as the former, but in fact serves as both, and bundling it with the FIGURE threatens to leave the division without a HEAD (and bundling it with the DIV threatens to leave the FIGURE without a HEAD). Here are several options (subject to being combined, if you like):
(1) PERHAPS BEST (because it provides a HEAD to the DIV as well as searchable text within FIGURE):
<DIV1 TYPE="biography"> <HEAD TYPE="illustration"> <FIGURE><FIGDESC>Portrait of Greg. Thaumaturgus</FIGDESC> </FIGURE></HEAD> <HEAD>GREG. THAVMATVRGVS</HEAD> <P>Greg. Thaumaturgus was born ...
(2) GOOD (because ditto, though less tidily):
<DIV1 TYPE="biography"> <HEAD><FIGURE><HEAD>GREG. THAVMATVRGVS</HEAD></FIGURE></HEAD> <P>Greg. Thaumaturgus was born...</P>
(3) CORRECT AND HELPFUL (with helpful N attribute used to substitute for lack of HEAD of div)
<DIV1 TYPE="biography" N="Greg. Thaumaturgus"> <P><FIGURE><HEAD>GREG. THAVMATVRGVS</HEAD></FIGURE></P> <P>Greg. Thaumaturgus was born ...
(4) CORRECT (but not especially helpful, since it leaves either the figure or the div without a head):
<DIV1 TYPE="biography"> <P><FIGURE><HEAD>GREG. THAVMATVRGVS</HEAD></FIGURE></P> <P>Greg. Thaumaturgus was born ...
or
<DIV1 TYPE="biography"> <FIGURE></FIGURE> <HEAD>GREG. THAVMATVRGVS</HEAD> <P>Greg. Thaumaturgus was born ...
(5) INCORRECT xx INVALID xx ('cause P/FIGURE can't precede HEAD):
<DIV1 TYPE="biography"> <P><FIGURE></FIGURE></P> <HEAD>GREG. THAVMATVRGVS</HEAD> <P>Greg. Thaumaturgus was born ...
Source: email
Date: 22 Aug 2002 File name: Wd2479 Vid: 58176 Page ref: 164
Keywords: FIGURE
Query. I have noticed that on a couple of occasions in the sample, the vendors have captured no data within the figures, e.g. that on p330 on image 164. Is this a problem?
Answer. I should think that the number of people interested in searching for illustrations is fairly large; consequently, I've always thought caption text more important than most. Are all (or most) of the figures lacking the appropriate text? Or was it omitted only now and again? If the latter is true, and maybe even if the former, I'd be inclined to see how hard it would be for us to supply the missing text. Since we've given ambiguous instructions with regard to text in images (capture captions and caption-like text, but not incidental text that is part of the illustration itself), we're on somewhat shaky ground rejecting a book because of this problem.
Source: email
Date: 14 May 2002 File name: n/a
Vid: n/a Page ref: n/a Keywords: FIGURE, HEAD
Query. Occasionally there was a figure before the head of a division. I have put these in ARGUMENT tags to allow them to go in the right place.
Answer. Note that it is possible to place a FIGURE within a HEAD.
Source: email
Date: 14 May 2002 File name: Wd1877
Page ref: 1 Keywords: FIGURE
Questions:
(1) Do we capture this text? I think yes.
(2) Do we try to include it *within* the FIGURE tag? Ideally, yes, but FIGURE does not allow LG or L, only HEAD, P, and TEXT (in that order). TEXT is overkill, I think.
So, we either leave it outside the FIGURE, as the vendor did (see below, which looks ok, though I'm not sure why they highlighted the date). Or I can try to add LG and L to FIGURE.
The vendor's approach seems acceptable to me, and it is probably what we've done in the past in this situation. However, it also seems unreasonable for FIGURE to include P but not LG. So I've rashly gone ahead and not only added L and LG (and Q) to FIGURE, but also removed the constraints on quantity and sequence: FIGURE can now contain any mixture of HEAD, P, L, LG, Q, FIGDESC and TEXT, as well as LB, PB, MILESTONE and GAP. Aside from the fact that it no longer follows TEI, can anyone think of an objection to this? I've made the change so far only in our ("proofing") version of the dtd. If it proves unworkable, I can easily switch back.
The frontispiece had been captured as follows:
<DIV1
TYPE="frontispiece">
<PB REF="1">
<LG>
<L>Ludit, sed neminem loe dit mea Musa jocosa</L>
<L>Quoga, videt, ridet, nec retinere queat</L>
</LG>
<P>Englished.</P>
<LG> <L>My merry Muse doth jest, but non abuse</L>
<L>It laughs at what it sees, nor can it choose</L>
</LG>
<P><FIGURE>
</FIGURE></P>
<P>Sequitur post nubila Phoebus.</P>
<P>Et prodesse solent, & delecture Poetae.</P>
<P>Printed for M. Wright at the Kings head in the Old Bayley.
<HI>1662</HI></P>
</DIV1>
Source: email
Date: 10 May 2002 Keywords: FIGURE, HEAD, titlepages
(1) We mostly use HEAD within FIGURE for caption-like material. But there is sometimes lengthier text within an illustration that seems worthy of capture but is not quite head-like material. We have started using P within FIGURE to capture this sort of thing. (And remember that for extreme cases FIGURE can also contain TEXT.)
(2) Title pages (or similar pages) with decorative frames--some of them highly elaborate--have always posed a problem. Do we record the frame as FIGURE? If so, where do we place the FIGURE tag relative to the text of the page? Sara suggests, and it sounds sensible to me, that we place the entire text of the title page (in Ps) within a FIGURE tag. Does anyone see a problem with this? It does, perhaps misleadingly, attach searchable information to the illustration that isn't strictly related to the illustration. Is there a better solution? Ignore the illustration altogether?
For example, see the title page to the Mirrour for Magistrates (vid6488/image1); we could tag it thus:
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<P>
<FIGURE>
<P>THE FIRST parte of the Mirour for Magistrates, contai|ning the falles
of the first infortunate Princes of this lande: From the comming of Brute to
the incarnation of our sauiour and redemer Iesu Christe. </P>
<P><BIBL>Ad Romanos. 13.2.</BIBL>
<Q>Quisquis se opponit potestati, Dei ordinationi resistit.</Q>
</P>
<P>Imprinted at London by Thomas Marshe. Anno 1574. Cum Priuilegio.
</P>
</FIGURE>
</P>
</DIV1>
Source: notes file
Date: 16 May 2003
File name: Wb4256
Keywords: FIGURE
For the epitaph on image 25, I have placed figure tags inside the HEAD as I couldn't see another way of keeping the figure within the DIV but before the heading. Is this ok? It didn't seem right to do it the other way round (placing the HEAD inside the FIGURE).
PFS: we've been doing it as you did, i.e.
<HEAD><FIGURE></FIGURE> EPITAPH.</HEAD>
or else splitting the HEAD in two like this:<HEAD TYPE="illustration"><FIGURE></FIGURE></HEAD>
<HEAD>EPITAPH.</HEAD>
Source: notes file
Date: 8 Oct 2003
File name: Wm247
Keywords: FIGURE
The following note from Apex appeared at the start of the file: "Problem Statement: Part of text observed on multiple pages. Treatment: Ignored the text and inserted blank page break."
This refers to the image(s) of a fold-out map of Peking.
The "snapshots" of the map actally cover 4 images,
but some of them are somewhat redundant--and apex
did a good job of recognizing that.
The map is captured as follows:
1) img 13, rh page, part of fold-out visible, captured as blank page
2) img 14, top of fold-out (spanning two pages), captured as <P><FIGURE><HEAD>...</FIGURE>
3) img 15, middle of fold-out, but seems to include what's visible in 2 and 4,
captured as blank page.
4) img 16, bottom third, including legend to map, captured
as text in <FIGURE> tags.
I basically kept the tagging that apex used, though I moved some of the PB tags. Also, apex used one PB tag per image. That makes sense to me on the one hand, but on the other, the captured portions of the fold-out do obviously look like they span two pages per image, so I also wonder if two PB tags should have been used for each image. Paul?
Here's the tagging as it stands now:
<DIV1 TYPE="map">
<PB REF="13">
<PB REF="14">
<P>
<FIGURE>
<HEAD>THE PLANE OF THE CITY OF PEKIM Y METROPOLIS OF CHINA</HEAD>
</FIGURE></P>
<P>
<PB REF="15">
<PB REF="16">
<FIGURE>
<HEAD>A Scale of 10 Chinese furlongs $^c^h. amount to 2730 Geometrical
Paces one Chinese furlong making 273 Geometrical Paces</HEAD>
<P><LIST>
<HEAD>An EXPLANATION of the Plane of the City of PEKIM.</HEAD>
[etc.]
</LIST></P>
</FIGURE></P>
</DIV1>
PFS: I think I'd simplify this a little on the following basis: (1) no matter how many 'snapshots' are present, there is really only one map, therefore only one <FIGURE> tag; and (2) it doesn't much matter where within the <FIGURE> tag the <PB>s occur, except that any quoted text should appear attached to the PB on which at least most of it (or the most complete snapshot of it) appears. Which produces this slightly different scheme:
<DIV1 TYPE="map">
<P>
<FIGURE>
<PB REF="13">
<HEAD><PB REF="14">
THE PLANE OF THE CITY OF PEKIM Y^E METROPOLIS OF CHINA</HEAD>
<P>
<PB REF="15">
<PB REF="16">
<P>A Scale of 10 Chinese furlongs w^c^h. amount to 2730 Geometrical
Paces one Chinese furlong making 273 Geometrical Paces</P>
<P><LIST>
<HEAD>An EXPLANATION of the Plane of the City of PEKIM.</HEAD>
[etc.]
</LIST></P>
<FIGDESC>Map of Beijing (Peking)</FIGDESC>
</FIGURE></P>
</DIV1>
I've reduced the 'scale' statement to a P instead of a HEAD, added the missing ^E in Y^E in the HEAD, placed all the PBs within the single FIGURE tag, and added a superfluous <FIGDESC> statement.
It would be simpler if there were no caption text; then I'd
probably just do this:
<DIV><P><FIGURE>
<PB>
<PB>
<PB>
<PB>
<PB>
</FIGURE></P></DIV>
Source: notes file
Date: 10 Dec 2003
File name: S4654
Keywords: FIGURE
This problem statement appeared in the file:
<!--
Conversion Report for 134-224C
==============================
1) Problem Statement : Figure information observed after closer.
Treatment : Captured before closer information.
File Name : S4654.SGM
Context in File : </FIGURE>
</P>
<CLOSER>
<SALUTE>Your Honours at...
-->
I have inserted trailer tags after the closer and have moved the figure in there, although that solution isn't entirely satisfactory either.
PFS: since it is at the end of the book, the little illustration could simply go into a DIV of its own in BACK (?)
Source: notes file
Date: 4 Dec 2003
File name: We934
Keywords: FIGURE
There is a figure above the first words in this text, a royal seal or some such. I tried to put <FIGURE></FIGURE before the <HEAD> but the validator would have none of it.
PFS: There are a number of precedents, of which the chief two are:
(1) put the seal in front matter, like this:
<FRONT><DIV1 TYPE="illustration">
<P><FIGURE></FIGURE></P></DIV1></FRONT>
(2) put the seal in a HEAD, like this (this time I've filled in some of the stuff within the FIGURE as well):
<HEAD TYPE="illustration">
<FIGURE><P>DIEV ET MON DROIT</P>
<FIGDESC>royal blazon</FIGDESC></FIGURE>
</HEAD>
Source: notes file
Date: 25 Mar 2004
File name: S10740
Keywords: FIGURE, LIST
Wasn't sure how to capture the figure on ref 123. It is two trees, with opposing qualities on opposite branches, mysterious Greek words as headings, and perhaps three people referred to on the roots. In the end, I only captured the main heading.
PFS: from the mocking context, these are supposed to be diagrams of the sort called "Porphyry's trees" (i.e., classification diagrams in outline form with each 'branch' a 'species' of the 'genus' below it, and then in turn being subdivide into subspecies, etc.) Such trees are normally read from the bottom (root) to the top (branches) and would normally be captured that way. So our normal method of capture for such things would presumably be nested lists starting at the bottom and working up.
That said, I find these particular trees pretty confusing and not exactly fitting the pattern. I've captured them using the normal procedure anyway, but am not all sure that the result makes sense:
<P><FIGURE>
<HEAD>Vtram harum mauis accipe</HEAD>
<P><FIGURE>
<HEAD>&Mgr;&sgr;~&ogr;&rgr;&ogr;&sfgr;</HEAD>
<P><LIST>
<HEAD>Ed: St:<LB>Jo: Hig:<LB>Jo: Fl.</HEAD>
<ITEM>Pithecus</ITEM>
<ITEM>Simia
<LIST>
<ITEM>Caudata</ITEM>
<ITEM>abs&abue; cauda</ITEM>
</LIST>
</ITEM>
<ITEM>Brutum
<LIST>
<ITEM>Ferum</ITEM>
<ITEM>Cicur</ITEM>
</LIST>
</ITEM>
<ITEM>Animal
<LIST>
<ITEM>Rationale</ITEM>
<ITEM>Irrationale</ITEM>
</LIST>
</ITEM>
</LIST></P>
</FIGURE></P>
<P><FIGURE>
<HEAD>&rg;&agr;<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="2">&ogr;&sfgr;</HEAD>
<P><LIST>
<HEAD>Ed: St:<LB>Io: Hig:</LB>Io: Fl:</HEAD>
<ITEM>Scurra</ITEM>
<ITEM>Dicax
<LIST>
<ITEM>Facetus</ITEM>
<ITEM>Infacetus</ITEM>
</LIST>
</ITEM>
<ITEM>mendax
<LIST>
<ITEM>Serius</ITEM>
<ITEM>Iocosus</ITEM>
</LIST>
</ITEM>
<ITEM>maledicus
<LIST>
<ITEM>ueriloquus</ITEM>
<ITEM>falsiloquus</ITEM>
</LIST>
</ITEM>
</LIST></P>
</FIGURE></P>
</FIGURE></P>
Source: notes file
Date: 6 Oct or 10 Jun 2004
File name: Wh2614
Keywords: TRAILER, FIGURE
Note from Apex:
# 3. Problem Statement : "Figure" Appeared After "Trailer"
# Treatment : "Figure" Captured before "Trailer"
# File Name : WH2614.SGM
#
# Context in the File
#
# </LIST>
# <P>
# <FIGURE>
# </FIGURE>
# </P>
# <TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
PFS: this is a curious illustration, that may or may not be related to the book (and there is evidence also of another title page beneath it, suggesting that dissimilar things may have been bound together.) A common solution to the figure-after-trailer problem is to put the figure within a trailer type="illustration".
Source: notes file
Date: 12 Apr 2002
File name: S26051
Keywords: FIGURE, titlepages
Put FIGURE tags outside both Ps in the title page because figure surrounds the two sections of text.
PFS: we don't usually bother to do this with "frame" illustrations on t.p.'s, but maybe we should; policy change suggested to group 5/10/02.
Source: notes file
Date: 22 Mar 2004
File name: S25641
Keywords: FIGURE
What should the scheme attribute available in FIGDESC be used for?
PFS: I stuck it in 'for future use', with the thought that if
we ever wished to use FIGDESC seriously, it should be done
by means of an established controlled vocabulary (or vocabularies),
and that the "scheme" attribute would designate which vocabulary
we were using, much as do various fields, subfields and indicators in
MARC. At the moment we seem to be slowly developing a minimal
vocabulary of our own, which I guess should be made the default
value
<!ATTLIST figdesc SCHEME CDATA "tcp">
or some such.
Our fledgling list of terms has tended to fall into the pattern of either "[form]" or "[form] of [subject]"
So far, the terms used have fallen into a few small groups:
(1) basic form words
<FIGDESC>blazon</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>book plate</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>diagram</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>effigy</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>emblem</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>panoramic view</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>portrait</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>printer's device</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>ruler or scale</FIGDESC>
(2) qualified form words
<FIGDESC>blazon or coat of arms of British Museum</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>blazon or coat of arms of Cambridge University</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>likeness of iguana</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>list of shorthand entities</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of Africa</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of America</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of Anglesey and Caernarvonshire</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of Scotland</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of Shropshire</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of Somersetshire</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of southern constellations</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of southern Scotland with Loch Lomond</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of southern Scotland</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of Southhampton</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of Spain</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of Staffordshire</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of Suffolk</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of Surrey</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of Sussex</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of Tartary</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of the Bermudas</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of the bishoprick of Durham</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of the city of Bath</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of the county of Chester</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of the county of Lancaster</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of the county of Leinster</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of the county of Mounmouth</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of the county of Radnor</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of the county of Westmorland</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of the County Palatine of Chester</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of the County Palatine of Lancaster</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of the Farne Islands</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of the Hebrides</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of the island of Dio</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of the Isle of Man</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of the Isle of Wight</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of the North and East Riding of Yorkshire</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of the province of Connaught</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>map of the province of Leinster</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>portrait of Nero</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>portrait of Nerva</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>portrait of Queen Elizabeth I</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>portrait of Queen Mary</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>portrait of Vortigern</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>royal blazon or coat of arms</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>royal seal</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>seal of Oxford University</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>symbol for pyramid</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>table of different alphabets</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>view of Rotterdam</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>woodcut of crucifixion</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>writing sample</FIGDESC>
(3) indications of subject matter, with no mention of form (assume 'picture of..' 'depiction of...' ??):
<FIGDESC>a type of plant</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>covered urn</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>crucifixion of Christ with the two thieves</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>harp</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>Kinghorn crag</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>Roman bowl</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>Roman urn</FIGDESC>
(4) a few odd-ball purely descriptive phrases
<FIGDESC>I in V</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>scattered dots</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>scattered lines</FIGDESC>
<FIGDESC>three in one heart</FIGDESC>
I think I'd prefer to turn all the (3)s into (2)s with the addition of a form element, say 'depiction of...'
But this is obviously both primitive and fairly random. I can imagine using (say) the "Art and architecture thesaurus" (see e.g. http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/vocabularies/ aat/?find=map&logic=AND¬e=&page=1) which would be (I suppose) <FIGDESC SCHEME="aat">
There has been no pressure from TCP mgt to develop subject indexing of any kind; and little staff time or interest to devote to it. Perhaps Emma, as a shall-be librarian, could explore this further...?)
Source: notes file
Date: 2 Feb 2004
File name: S7573
Keywords: FIGURE, Hebrew
Wasn't sure whether to capture the stamp on the title page. It contains some Hebrew characters
PFS: the Tetragrammaton (yod-he-vav-he = YHWH)
that are also on the frontispiece and the illustration on the following page. Otherwise looks like a printers stamp.
PFS: clearly part of the book as published, no reason not to include it, so far as I can see. And we always capture printer's devices and stamps, whether they appear on the title page, in a colophon, or elsewhere.
Source: notes file
Date: 20 Oct 2004
File name: S9991
Keywords: character
The rubrications seem to confuse the keyer, who captured both the big letter (as a letter) and the "guide letter" [which is printed to tell the rubricator which big letter to put it] (as $).
PFS: this exact issue has not arisen before, but it makes sense to me simply to omit the guide-letter, once it has been used to supply a rubricated letter. To put in both letters would be misleading--akin to including both the catchword and the word that it refers to.
This:
<DIV1 TYPE="frontispiece"> <P><FIGURE></FIGURE></P> <P>Vera effigies <HI>Gildae</HI> qui ob insignem Prudentiam, Morum&abque; Severitatem Cognominatus est Sapiens Floruit anno reparationis humanae DXXXXVI Will: Marshall-sculp:</P> </DIV1> * * * <DIV1 TYPE="imprimatur"> <PB REF="2"> <P><HI>Imprimatur</HI>, Tho. Wykes&punc; R. P. Episc. Lond. Capell. domest.</P> </DIV1>
was changed (by pfs) to:
<DIV1 TYPE="frontispiece"> <P><FIGURE> <HEAD>Vera effigies <HI>Gildae</HI> qui ob insignem Prudentiam, Morum&abque; Severitatem Cognominatus est Sapiens Floruit anno reparationis humanae DXXXXVI</HEAD> <BYLINE>Will: Marshall-sculp:</BYLINE> <FIGDESC>Portrait of Gildas</FIGDESC> </FIGURE></P> </DIV1> * * * <DIV1 TYPE="imprimatur"> <PB REF="2"> <P><HI>Imprimatur,</HI></P> <CLOSER><SIGNED>Tho. Wykes&punc; R. P. Episc. Lond. Capell. domest.</SIGNED> </CLOSER> </DIV1>
This change: associated the heading for the frontispiece more firmly with the FIGURE (by moving it within