Source: email
Date: 25 Jan 2005
File name: n/a
Vid: n/a
Page ref: n/a
Keywords: LIST, TRAILER
Since we've allowed LISTs to take TRAILERs as well as HEADs, it's possible to do something like this:
<DIV1 TYPE="publisher's advertisement"> <HEAD>ADVERTISEMENTS.</HEAD> <LIST> <ITEM>&rindx;A Sermon Preached before the Honourable House of Commons, by <HI>W. Sherlock</HI> D. D. Price 6 <HI>d.</HI></ITEM> <ITEM>A Vindication of that Sermon from a Popish Remonstrance, 4^o. Price 6 <HI>d.</HI></ITEM> <TRAILER>Both sold by <HI>John Amery</HI> at the Peacock in <HI>Fleetstreet.</HI></TRAILER> </LIST>
<LIST> <ITEM>A Discourse against Transubstantiation. Price 6 <HI>d.</HI></ITEM> <ITEM>Doctrines and Practices of the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> truly Represented, in Answer to a Papist Mis-represented and Represented.</ITEM> <TRAILER>>Both printed for <HI>W. Rogers.</HI></TRAILER> </LIST> </DIV1>
Source: notes file
Date: 2005-01-25
File name: apex/S21226-5
Keywords: LIST
This book is made up almost entirely of nested bracketed LISTs that weave in and out of each other. Each LIST is only one page long; the LISTs do not cross PBs. The keyers captured the LISTs consistently, using HEADs for the far left text block and using ITEMs for nested LISTs.
The trouble with the nested LISTs is that once they split, they can't cleanly link back together using our limited tag structure (which only allows forks, not joins), as for instance when the text prints left-facing brackets to connect or summarize previous LISTs. As a solution, the keyers used HEAD tags for text blocks printed after left-facing brackets, and moved the HEAD to before the text to which it referred to its left. I think this is a good solution that at least attempts to maintain the structure of the text. Another solution that abandons capturing the structure would have been to treat the text as a narrative and use Ps and no LISTs. Since the LISTs in this file are embedded and the left-bracketed HEADs are not where they would be in narrative form, I think it is unwise to globally remove the LIST formatting. Therefore, I'm leaving the LIST formatting as the keyers submitted it.
PFS: *rarely* it is also possible to handle limited joins by means of a list TRAILER--but not in this case. Usually list joins require either abandoning LIST structure altogether or duplicating information artificially so as to fall under two or more different trees.
Source: email
Date: 18 Oct 2004
File name: n/a
Vid: n/a
Page ref: n/a
Keywords: LIST
I just did a number on an index. It looked roughly like this in the book:
(Part. Pag.)
Adversaries.
The truth of the Scriptures proved by the testimony of the adversaries. 1, 53
Advantage.
Hee that puts himselfe from Gods worke for his owne advantage, makes himselfe his end. 1, 149
Affections.
Affections inordinately set on a thing, make 1, 90
Affections sinfull must be pur|ged out. 2, 62
Affections to the creatures, what raiseth them. 2, 204 Affections strong breed strong afflictions. Ibid.
It had been tagged like this, with each heading in the index given its own DIV3, with the result that the index was unhelpfully subdivided into over four hundred little DIVs:
<DIV3 TYPE="section">
<LIST>
<HEAD>Adversaries.</HEAD>
<LABEL>The
truth of the Scriptures proved by the testimony of the
<HI>adversaries</HI>.</LABEL>
<ITEM>1,
53</ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 TYPE="section">
<LIST>
<HEAD>Advantage.</HEAD>
<LABEL>Hee
that puts himselfe from Gods worke for his owne <HI>advantage</HI>,
makes himselfe his end.</LABEL>
<ITEM>1,
149</ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 TYPE="section">
<LIST>
<HEAD>Affections.</HEAD>
<LABEL><HI>Affections</HI>
inordinately set on a thing, make it a god.</LABEL>
<ITEM>1,
90</ITEM>
<LABEL><HI>Affections</HI> sinfull
must be pur|ged out.</LABEL>
<ITEM>2,
62</ITEM>
<LABEL><HI>Affections</HI> to the
creatures, what raiseth them.</LABEL>
<ITEM>2,
204</ITEM>
<LABEL><HI>Affections</HI> strong
breed strong afflictions.</LABEL>
<ITEM>Ibid.</ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV3>
I changed this as folllows, distributing the "Part." and "Pag." labels, removing the LABEL-ITEM structure, and changing the index entries from HEADs of DIV3s to ITEMs in a LIST (with a nested list for subitems):
<LIST>
<ITEM>Adversaries.
<LIST>
<ITEM>The truth of the Scriptures proved by the
testimony of the <HI>adversaries</HI>. Part. 1, Pag.
53</ITEM>
</LIST>
</ITEM>
<ITEM>Advantage.
<LIST>
<ITEM>Hee that puts himselfe from Gods worke for
his owne <HI>advantage</HI>, makes himselfe his end. Part. 1, Pag.
149</ITEM>
</LIST>
</ITEM>
<ITEM>Affections.
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>Affections</HI> inordinately
set on a thing, make it a god. Part. 1, Pag. 90</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Affections</HI> sinfull
must be pur|ged out. Part. 2, Pag. 62</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Affections</HI> to the
creatures, what raiseth them. Part. 2, Pag. 204</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Affections</HI> strong
breed strong afflictions. Ibid.</ITEM>
</LIST>
</ITEM>
</LIST>
Source: email
Date: 29 Sep 2004
File name: n/a
Vid: n/a
Page ref: n/a
Keywords: LIST
Query. Should we avoid nesting LIST within ITEM when there is only one subordinate item? For example:
<ITEM>Tim Henman p.12 <HI>Judith's particular hatred of p.13</HI></ITEM>
rather than
<ITEM>Tim Henman p.12
<LIST><ITEM>Judith's particular
hatred of p.13</ITEM></LIST> </ITEM>
Answer. I don't think so. I would probably do it the second way.
I think the nested way is the more precise way--the tidiest way, if you like--and should be encouraged if it's not too much work. I can't think of a reason to remove it if I found it already in place, and correctly done.
Another minor point, and one on which I was uncertain, was where exactly the nesting should go. I nested after the chapter number, because it felt right:
<ITEM>CHAP. 15
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>Rules for Contentment.</HI> Pag. 59</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Prayer.</HI> Pag. 65</ITEM>
</LIST> </ITEM>
But starting the nesting later would have made sense too, especially if there was no chapter number to 'anchor' the item, as in the example of Judith and Tim (above):
<ITEM>CHAP. 15 <HI>Rules for
Contentment.</HI> Pag. 59
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>The Prayer.</HI> Pag. 65</ITEM>
</LIST>
</ITEM>
The former sees 'rules' and 'prayer' as subordinate pieces of chap. 15;
the latter sees 'prayer' as subordinate to 'rules'; both are defensible, I think. It's like the difference between
<DIV1 TYPE="chapter" N="15">
<DIV2
TYPE="part"><HEAD>Rules</HEAD></DIV2>
<DIV2
TYPE="part"><HEAD>Prayer</HEAD></DIV2>
</DIV1>
and
<DIV1 TYPE="chapter"
N="15"><HEAD>Rules</HEAD>
<DIV2
TYPE="part"><HEAD>Prayer</HEAD></DIV2>
</DIV1>
Query. Does it make a difference if the entire list only contains single-item subordinates, i.e. would the nesting above be OK if other items in the overall list did contain multiple-item subordinates?
Answer. The latter almost impells you to nest; when there are single-item subordinates, the relationship is fairly clear without nesting and therefore it's easier to do without it. So I guess I'd prefer it in both cases, but more so in the case of more complex subordination.
Source: email
Date: 29 Sep 2004
File name: n/a
Vid: n/a
Page ref: n/a
Keywords: LIST
Query. The other question is about use of label. We haven't been using LABEL at all since April for this kind of simple list with columnar headings. We would only, I think, use LABEL to make an absolute distinction of sense between two columns - I've found your glossary example very helpful in this case.
So is your reply in the last proofers' notes a rethink of the policy from April, when you said [see below] ...
Answer. No. You're right. The true home of the TEI label-item list is the 'glossary list'; its origin is probably the HTML <DL> 'dictionary list' element. We have, mostly through my ignorance, extended it in two directions. The first is to generalize it to all pairings that resemble glossaries in sense distinction and layout (a very vague criterion, I know); the second is to generalize it to 2-column lists with headings over one or the other of the columns, in order to provide a way to capture those headings (short of using TABLE) if it is not convenient to distribute them--many of them can be distributed, which avoids the need for the label-item model.
I agreed that the column headings should be distributed and the label-item model abandoned in favour of the plain item-item-item model. In the terms of the paragraph you quote from me (below), This case falls under (a) (which suggests use of label/item), but also under the exception in the last sentence (which allows one to distribute the headings and therefore avoid label-item). In other words I didn't use the label/item model!
Which doesn't mean that I didn't use LABEL. I did this:
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 7</LABEL> <HI>Of
Joy.</HI> Pag. 24</ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 8</LABEL> <HI>Of Anger and
Malice.</HI> Pag. 30</ITEM>
I think you perhaps are being confused by my purely gratuitous use (in the choice I finally made) of LABEL within ITEM. This is just a variant of the item/item model, and has nothing to do with the label/item model. LABEL used within an item is simply a low-level tag like EMPH or ABBR, not much more informative than HI. It says, basically: 'this part of the item is set apart from the rest of the item inasmuch as it serves as its head or label.' It's much the same as:
<ITEM><HI>CHAP. 7</HI> <HI>Of
Joy.</HI> Pag. 24</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>CHAP. 8</HI> <HI>Of Anger and
Malice.</HI> Pag. 30</ITEM>
--except that I am specifying the reason for the highlighting of the chapter headings.
[previous comment from pfs, quoted by JB:
"The commonest reasons for using the 2-column model are (a) the existence of heading(s) over the columns; and (b) a real pairing as one would find in a glossary (but do not normally find an index). Even (a) is not necessarily a reason to use the 2-column model if the heading is simple and can be simply distributed to all the items. "Page" for example can usually be distributed:
| Page | |
| Chapter 1. Of metaphor. | 3 |
| Chapter 2. Of simile. | 15 |
| Chapter 3. Tropes. | 23 |
<LIST>
<ITEM>Chapter 1. Of metaphor.
<HI>Page 3</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Chapter 2. Of simile. <HI>Page
15</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Chapter 3. Tropes. <HI>Page
23</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>"
Source: email
Date: 26 Apr 2004
File name: n/a
Vid: n/a
Page ref: n/a
Keywords: LIST
I've been looking at a lot of tables of contents and indexes lately, and have emerged with the following observations (comments welcomed, please).
(1) I see the '2-column' (label-item) model of LIST used more often than it really needs to be. As usual, I would give preference to the simpler ITEM-ITEM-ITEM model. The commonest reasons for using the 2-column model are (a) the existence of heading(s) over the columns; and (b) a real pairing as one would find in a glossary (but do not normally find an index). Even (a) is not necessarily a reason to use the 2-column model if the heading is simple and can be simply distributed to all the items. "Page" for example can usually be distributed:
| Page | |
|---|---|
| Chapter 1. Of metaphor. | 3 |
| Chapter 2. Of simile. | 15 |
| Chapter 3. Tropes. | 23 |
<LIST>
<ITEM>Chapter 1. Of metaphor.
<HI>Page 3</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Chapter 2. Of simile. <HI>Page
15</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Chapter 3. Tropes. <HI>Page
23</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
whereas in the following example, the column headers force one into the 2-column model, since no distribution is feasible:
| Term | Signification |
|---|---|
| giblet | a rabbet cut in masonry. |
| giff-gaff | mutual help, give and take |
| gigot | a leg (of mutton) |
<LIST>
<LABEL
ROLE="label">Term</LABEL>
<ITEM
ROLE="label">Signification/ITEM>
<LABEL>giblet</LABEL>
<ITEM>a
rabbet cut in masonry.</ITEM>
<LABEL>giff-gaff</LABEL>
<ITEM>mutual
help, give and take</ITEM>
<LABEL>gigot</LABEL>
<ITEM>a leg
(of mutton)</ITEM>
(2) Whichever model is used, when it meets a typical index, it frequently gets in trouble with nesting. A typical if fairly complex index entry looks like this:
Roman
women,
their dress 106
their slaves at
the toilette 107
the ornaments they
wore in their hair and at their ears ibid
their high
head-dresses 109
dyed their hair
yellow, and powdered it with gold dust ibid.
their cosmetics,
paint, and coating for the face 109
their false teeth
made of box 110
were long
unacquainted with the use of linen and silk ibid
their extravagance
in ornamenting their shoes 147
knights,
the speech of
Caesar to them on their having neglected to marry 246
fined by him for
this neglect 247
some of them
married children to fulfil the letter, and avoid
the spirit of the
law, which obliged them to marry 251
I've seen some of these captured entirely within one LABEL, with ITEM reserved for the last page number, thus:
<LABEL>Roman
women,
their dress 106
their slaves at
the toilette 107
the ornaments they
wore in their hair and at their ears ibid
their high
head-dresses 109
dyed their hair
yellow, and powdered it with gold dust ibid.
their cosmetics,
paint, and coating for the face 109
their false teeth
made of box 110
were long
unacquainted with the use of linen and silk ibid
their extravagance
in ornamenting their shoes 147
knights,
the speech of
Caesar to them on their having neglected to marry 246
fined by him for
this neglect 247
some of them
married children to fulfil the letter, and avoid
the spirit of the
law, which obliged them to marry</LABEL> <ITEM>251</ITEM>
which is obviously wrong.
Minimalist, but OK, would be to treat the whole block as one ITEM:
<ITEM>Roman
women,
their dress 106
their slaves at
the toilette 107
the ornaments they
wore in their hair and at their ears ibid
their high
head-dresses 109
dyed their hair
yellow, and powdered it with gold dust ibid.
their cosmetics,
paint, and coating for the face 109
their false teeth
made of box 110
were long
unacquainted with the use of linen and silk ibid
their extravagance
in ornamenting their shoes 147
knights,
the speech of
Caesar to them on their having neglected to marry 246
fined by him for
this neglect 247
some of them
married children to fulfil the letter, and avoid
the spirit of the
law, which obliged them to marry 251</ITEM>
A little better would be to break out the pieces of the block as separate items, but not attempt to capture the hierarchy, thus:
<ITEM>Roman women, their dress 106</ITEM>
<ITEM>their slaves at the toilette 107</ITEM>
<ITEM>the ornaments they wore in their hair and at their ears
ibid</ITEM>
<ITEM>their high head-dresses 109</ITEM>
<ITEM>dyed their hair yellow, and powdered it with gold dust ibid.</ITEM>
<ITEM>their cosmetics, paint, and coating for the face 109</ITEM>
<ITEM>their false teeth made of box 110</ITEM>
<ITEM>were long unacquainted with the use of linen and silk
ibid</ITEM>
<ITEM>their extravagance in ornamenting their shoes 147</ITEM>
<ITEM>knights, the speech of Caesar to them on their having neglected to
marry 246</ITEM>
<ITEM>fined by him for this neglect 247</ITEM>
<ITEM>some of them married children to fulfil the letter, and avoid the
spirit of the law, which obliged them to marry 251</ITEM>
Better still is nested tagging that reflects the actual nested structure, at least approximately:
<ITEM>Roman
<LIST>
<ITEM>women,
<LIST>
<ITEM>their
dress 106</ITEM>
<ITEM>their
slaves at the toilette 107</ITEM>
<ITEM>the
ornaments they wore in their hair and at their ears ibid</ITEM>
<ITEM>their
high head-dresses 109</ITEM>
<ITEM>dyed
their hair yellow, and powdered it with gold dust ibid.</ITEM>
<ITEM>their
cosmetics, paint, and coating for the face 109</ITEM>
<ITEM>their
false teeth made of box 110</ITEM>
<ITEM>were
long unacquainted with the use of linen and silk ibid</ITEM>
<ITEM>their
extravagance in ornamenting their shoes 147</ITEM>
</LIST>
</ITEM>
<ITEM>knights,
<LIST>
<ITEM>the
speech of Caesar to them on their having neglected to marry 246</ITEM>
<ITEM>fined
by him for this neglect 247</ITEM>
<ITEM>some
of them married children to fulfil the letter, and avoid the spirit of the law,
which obliged them to marry 251</ITEM>
</LIST>
</ITEM>
</LIST>
</ITEM>
I've also seen some attempts at this that start the nested list a little too late, e.g.
<ITEM>women,their dress 106
<LIST>
<ITEM>their slaves at the toilette
107</ITEM>
<ITEM>their cosmetics 110</ITEM> ...
(In each case, the lowest-level LIST could also be done in the 2-column way, but there is no good reason to do so.)
Source: email
Date: 23 Apr 2004
File name: n/a
Vid: n/a
Page ref: n/a
Keywords: LIST, ITEM
A table of contents appeared tagged as below, with each item tagged as a separate LIST--which is a definite misuse of list. It is a pretty safe bet that if none of your lists contain more than one item, then they are not really lists.
<LIST>
<HEAD>LETTER I.</HEAD>
<LABEL><HI>TO Messer Perepollastre</HI>, an
<HI>Italian</HI>, the Author's Friend; exposing a Ca|lumny cast
upon him, and defending his Innocence.</LABEL>
<ITEM><HI>Page</HI> 1.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>LET. II.</HEAD>
<LABEL>To Dr. <HI>Melgar</HI>, a Physician; in which are
handled the good and harm occasion'd by his Profession, together with the
Progress and several Interruptions of that Art; as also the Author's thoughts
of it from its first Original.</LABEL>
<ITEM><HI>p.</HI> 11.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>LET. III.</HEAD>
<LABEL>To a Lady, the Author's Neece, who fell sick for the Death of a
little Bitch.</LABEL>
<ITEM><HI>p.</HI> 32.</ITEM>
</LIST>
I simplified to this simple ITEM-ITEM-ITEM LIST:
<LIST>
<ITEM><LABEL>LETTER
I.</LABEL> <HI>TO Messer Perepollastre</HI>, an
<HI>Italian</HI>, the Author's Friend; exposing a Ca|lumny cast
upon him, and defending his Innocence. <HI>Page</HI>
1.</ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>LET. II.</LABEL>
To Dr. <HI>Melgar</HI>, a Physician; in which are handled the good
and harm occasion'd by his Profession, together with the Progress and several
Interruptions of that Art; as also the Author's thoughts of it from its first
Original. <HI>p.</HI> 11.</ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>LET.
III.</LABEL> To a Lady, the Author's Neece, who fell sick for the Death
of a little Bitch. <HI>p.</HI> 32.</ITEM>
...
</LIST>
Acceptable alternative would have been a LABEL-ITEM list like this:
<LABEL>LET. III.</LABEL>
<ITEM> To a Lady, the Author's Neece, who fell sick for the Death of a
little Bitch. <HI>p.</HI> 32.</ITEM>
or simple Ps:
<P>LET. III. To a Lady, the Author's Neece, who fell sick for the Death of a little Bitch. <HI>p.</HI> 32.</P>
Source: email
Date: 9 Apr 2004
File name: n/a
Vid: n/a
Page ref: n/a
Keywords: LIST, syllogisms
I'm tending toward the following; it seems less abusive than LG/L and can appear embedded in running prose (unlike the LB solution):
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM>All Cretans are liars</ITEM>
<ITEM>I am a Cretan</ITEM>
<ITEM>Therfore I am a liar</ITEM>
</LIST>
Source: email
Date: 17 Mar 2004
File name: n/a
Vid: n/a
Page ref: n/a
Keywords: LIST, attributes
(1) I have added a ROLE attribute to the LABEL and ITEM elements, with one possible value being ROLE="label". This will bring these elements into line with the CELL element (in TABLEs), and it will allow two-column lists that have headings over one column or both to be tagged properly. (LABEL ROLE="label" and ITEM ROLE="label" are equivalents for the TEI elements HeadLabel and HeadItem, respectively.)
(2) I have allowed LIST to appear within LABEL. This will allow some of the more complex lists to be captured, e.g. those that pair 'bracketed' lists of things with single things.
This simple two-column list illustrates the changes:
| Distances from Manila to various cities | City |
|---|---|
| Sydney, Australia | 6258 |
| New Delhi, India | 4765 |
| Chicago, USA \ |
13099 |
| Atlanta, USA / |
could be captured as:
<LIST>
<HEAD>Distances from Manila to various cities</HEAD>
<LABEL ROLE="label">City</LABEL>
<ITEM ROLE="label">Km</ITEM>
<LABEL>Sydney, Australia</LABEL>
<ITEM>6258</ITEM>
<LABEL>New Delhi, India</LABEL>
<ITEM>4765</ITEM>
<LABEL>
<LIST>
<ITEM>Chicago, USA</ITEM>
<ITEM>Atlanta, USA</ITEM>
</LIST>
</LABEL>
<ITEM>13099</ITEM>
</LIST>
Source: email
Date: 21 Jun 2002
File name: n/a
Vid: n/a
Page ref: n/a
Keywords: LIST
For example, lists of names, with some of the names bracketed and their rank or station given in the margin, e.g.
|
Emma Leeson |
\ |
Full-timers |
|
Judith Siefring |
| |
|
|
Olivia Bottum |
> |
|
|
John Latta |
| |
|
|
Mona Logarbo |
/ |
|
|
Allison Liefer |
\ |
Part-timers |
|
Kirk Davis |
> |
|
|
Sara Gothard |
/ |
|
|
Paul Schaffner |
|
No-timer |
|
Dave Price |
\ |
Leaders |
|
Richard Gartner |
> |
|
|
Mark Sandler |
/ |
There are basically three ways to do this, or three that I can think of at the moment:
(1) Distribute the descriptions, i.e. repeat the term for each person to whom it applies. This is fine so far as it goes, especially with simple lists. The trouble with this approach, as Emma says, is that it often means turning plurals into singulars in order to make sense:
<ITEM>Emma full-timer</ITEM>
<ITEM>Judith full-timer</ITEM>
etc.
We can do this pl. -> sg. change, but I recommend it only if it can be done straightforwardly and only if it is the only practical way to deal with a lot of existing tagging. I don't know about you, but I'm not too comfortable with it.
(2) Use the descriptions as HEADs of nested lists. This is usually the preferred method. Its only drawback is that unless you're willing to create little lists of one item each, it means treating labels applied to individuals differently from labels applied to groups:
<LIST>
<ITEM>
<LIST><HEAD>Full-timers</HEAD>
<ITEM>Emma</ITEM>
<ITEM>Judith</ITEM>
<ITEM>Olivia</ITEM>
</LIST>
</ITEM>
<ITEM>
<LIST><HEAD>Part-timers</HEAD>
<ITEM>Allison</ITEM>
<ITEM>Kirk</ITEM>
</LIST>
</ITEM>
<ITEM>Paul Schaffer no-timer</ITEM>
</LIST>
or:
... <ITEM>
<LIST><HEAD>no-timer</HEAD>
<ITEM>Paul Schaffner</ITEM>
</LIST>
</ITEM>
(3) Finally, you can capture the appearance, rather than the logic, of the list by tagging the bracketed items as an embedded TABLE. There is nothing exactly wrong with this, except that is irritating in its agnosticism: it refuses to interpret so much that it misrepresents the original (which really is a list, not a table). Still, if it comes tagged this way, it is rarely worth the effort to change it:
<LIST>
<ITEM>
<TABLE>
<ROW><CELL>
<LIST>
<ITEM>Emma</ITEM>
<ITEM>Judith</ITEM>
<ITEM>Olivia</ITEM>
<ITEM>John</ITEM>
<ITEM>Mona</ITEM>
</LIST>
</CELL>
<CELL ROWS="5"
ROLE="label">Full-timers</CELL>
</ROW></TABLE>
</ITEM>
Source: notes file
Date: 19 Mar 2004
File name: S11344
Keywords: LIST, syllogism
There were some puzzling notes on refs 118-119 of (to me) meaningless syllables alongside lines of logic statements. I captured them as marginal notes (one per line).
PFS: I'm not sure exactly what they are either, but there seems to be some explanation of them in the text, e.g. here:
# <P>In all those artificiall woordes, <HI>Darapti, Felapton,
# &c.</HI> and others of the same kinde, there bée
# certeine significant letters to be obserued, as, <HI>A,</HI>
# signifieth a generall affirmatiue axiome: <HI>E,</HI> a generall
# negatiue: <HI>I,</HI> a speciall affirmatiue: <HI>O,</HI> a
# speciall negatiue: besides some consonantes which bée
# notes of Reduction, which I little estéeme of.</P>
# <P>The olde verses bée thus,</P>
# <LG>
# <L>Asserit, A: negat, E: sunt vniuersaliter ambae:</L>
# <L>Asserit, I: negat, O: sunt particulariter ambae.</L>
Your syllables seem to be parts of these 'artificial words', and correspond to the complete words that appear in various forms throughout, all or most of which have been captured elsewhere as marginal notes, e.g. Fe|ri|son and Bo|car|do on img 115; or Cae-Sa-Re on img 117. So it seems right to treat these syllables here as NOTEs too. However, I think that this consistency should extend to other aspects of their capture: I see identical sets of syllables captured on one page as a single note (<NOTE>Ce-La-Rent</NOTE>) and on another as three notes (<NOTE>Ce-</NOTE><NOTE>La-</NOTE><NOTE>Rent-</NOTE>); and I see the hyphen represented sometimes as "-" and sometimes as "|". Not sure which is best, but I changed them all to one note each, with real hyphens, mostly because that required the fewest changes.
I am more troubled by the fact that many of the syllogisms (those that weren't captured with one <P> per line) were apparently captured as VERSE, i.e. as <L>, usually within <LG> or <L> within <Q>. This particular text makes the distinction harder than in most, since the sets of logical lines (premises and conclusions) are interspersed with similar sets of actual verse lines--some of which are quoted for the logic that they contain! We've not really established a policy for capturing syllogisms, and have mostly relied on simple <LB> in the few examples that I can recall.
It's time for a policy.
It seems to me that (aside from modifying the dtd), we have three sets of elements in the dtd that are line-oriented and therefore could serve. (1) We could use <LB>, which is the simplest, but does not offer a ready way to capture the syllogism as a whole (except for <P> and <Q>, both of which have their drawbacks: <P> cannot be embedded in another <P>; and <Q> is not really right for syllogisms that are not quoted from somewhere else). (2) We could use <LG> (perhaps even <LG TYPE="syllogism"> and <L>, as the taggers have done with this book, which is effective, but perhaps fatally confuses poetry and logic: they're both organized by lines, but they're not the same; and using <L> for logical propositions will surely taint any search that uses <L> as a way to look for poetic vocabulary. Or (3) we could use <LIST> and <ITEM>. This seems to be open to the fewest objections. Therefore, I am inclined to recommend <LIST TYPE="syllogism">
Source: notes file
Date: 1 Oct 2003
File name: S13974.take2
Keywords: LIST
There are a number of family trees which are rather awkward to capture: I have made a few alterations to PDCCs nested lists used to capture the material. I have placed each example inside FIGURE tags as the material appears in circles and it would be useful for users to look at the images. Occasionally there are interconnecting lines, which seem to me impossible to capture, but most of the connections are shown by nested lists.
PFS: having looked at a few genealogies lately, it seemed to me that *most* could be captured by lists structured basically as follows, with alternating sublists of spouses (or equivalent) and offspring:
<LIST>
<ITEM>Paul <!-- ancestor -->
<LIST>
<ITEM>Ralph <!-- Paul's first son, Ralph -->
<LIST>
<ITEM>Ria <!-- Ralph's first wife, Ria -->
<LIST>
<ITEM>Richard</ITEM> <!-- Ria's first child -->
<ITEM>Robert</ITEM> <!-- Ria's second child -->
</LIST>
</ITEM>
<ITEM>Rochelle <!-- Ralph's second wife, Rochelle -->
<LIST>
<ITEM>Raylene</ITEM> <!-- Rochelle's first child, Raylene -->
<ITEM>Runch</ITEM> <!-- Rochelle's second child, Runch -->
</LIST>
</ITEM>
</LIST>
</ITEM>
<ITEM>Ian <!--Paul's second son, Ian -->
<LIST>
<ITEM>Joan <!--Ian's first wife, Joan -->
</ITEM>
<ITEM>Jane <!--Ian's second wife, Jane -->
</ITEM>
</LIST>
</ITEM>
</LIST>
</ITEM>
</LIST>
The tricky part is what to do with genelogies that cross, e.g. if cousins marry. I don't think LISTs of any kind can handle that. In a couple cases, we have given up in that case on expressing relationships at all, but simply listed the bits of the genealogy more or less as printed, simply as items in a flat (unnested) list within P within FIGURE. Alternatively, as you seem to have done, capture some of the relationships but not others. Short of creating a whole new markup system for genealogies, I don't see any alternative.
Source: notes file
Date: 19 Aug 2004
File name: Wa1131
Keywords: LIST
The table of contents has been done as <LABEL><ITEM> with the first label being Chapter and the first item page (with role="label" attributes). As some chapters have subordinate bits the structure becomes clumsy with
<LABEL>12 An examination of blah</LABEL>
<ITEM>354 <LIST><LABEL>Prayer</LABEL><ITEM>356</ITEM></LIST></ITEM>
I would probably have done a simpler
<ITEM>CHAP 12 An examination of blah PAG 354. Prayer PAG 356</ITEM>
had I been doing it from scratch, but I decided it wasn't worth changing. Was I right?
PFS: I think you were right that it wasn't worth changing; probably right too that a somewhat simpler (or at least different) approach would have served at least as well.
In case it isn't obvious, this is one of those commonplace two-column tables of contents with little headings ("CHAP" and "Pag.") over the columns. It is almost wholly *without* subordination (i.e. there are no nested lists of contents under each chapter), except that two or three times, there is a "prayer" listed separately after the chapter title and page, e.g.
| CHAP | Pag. |
| 16 Of Hope. | 68 |
| 17 Rules to Govern our Hope. | 75 |
| The Prayer | 77 |
| 18 Of Fear. | 79 |
The tricky bit consists of those headings CHAP and Pag. One theoretically has at least three options:
(1) You could put it in a true table
<TABLE>
<ROW>
<CELL ROLE="label">CHAP</CELL>
<CELL ROLE="label">Pag.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>16 <HI>Of Hope.</HI></CELL>
<CELL>68</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>17 <HI>Rules to Govern our Hope.</HI></CELL>
<CELL>75</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL><HI>The Prayer</HI></CELL>
<CELL>77</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>18 <HI>Of Fear.</HI></CELL>
<CELL>79</CELL>
</ROW>
</TABLE>
We usually think of this as an example of excessively descriptive markup--recording the visual appearance without regard to the relationships between the pieces. And it makes it hard to handle the little bit of subordination involved in "The Prayer." Reject this option.
(2) We can use the 'improved' two-column list format that I created by expanding the TEI 'glossary list' option: basically a variant on the HTML <DL> element. This allows us to use <LIST> and still keep the column headings. Like this:
<LIST>
<LABEL ROLE="label">CHAP</LABEL> <ITEM ROLE="label">Pag.</ITEM>
<LABEL>16 <HI>Of Hope.</HI></LABEL> <ITEM>68</ITEM>
<LABEL>17 <HI>Rules to Govern our Hope.</HI></LABEL><ITEM>75
<LIST>
<LABEL><HI>The Prayer</HI></LABEL> <ITEM>77</ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<LABEL>18 <HI>Of Fear.</HI></LABEL> <ITEM>79</ITEM>
</LIST>
As Emma observes, this too gets a little messy when it comes to The Prayer, but it at least expresses the relationship between the parts better than TABLE does, and it offers a convenient if ugly way to capture the CHAP and Pag. headings. This is a legitimate option.
(3) We can 'distribute' the headings if that can be done with confidence, and simplify the whole structure to one form or another of simple list, e.g. this (3a) :
<LIST>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP 16</LABEL> <HI>Of Hope.</HI> Pag. 68</ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP 17</LABEL>
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>Rules to Govern our Hope.</HI> Pag. 75</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Prayer</HI> Pag. 77</ITEM>
</LIST>
</ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP 18</LABEL> <HI>Of Fear.</HI> Pag. 79</ITEM>
</TABLE>
or this (3b):
<LIST>
<ITEM>CHAP 16 <HI>Of Hope.</HI> Pag. 68</ITEM>
<ITEM>CHAP 17
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>Rules to Govern our Hope.</HI> Pag. 75</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Prayer</HI> Pag. 77</ITEM>
</LIST>
</ITEM>
<ITEM>CHAP 18 <HI>Of Fear.</HI> Pag. 79</ITEM>
</TABLE>
or (most simply) this (3c):
<LIST>
<ITEM>CHAP 16 <HI>Of Hope.</HI> Pag. 68</ITEM>
<ITEM>CHAP 17 <HI>Rules to Govern our Hope.</HI> Pag. 75
<HI>The Prayer</HI> Pag. 77</ITEM>
<ITEM>CHAP 18 <HI>Of Fear.</HI> Pag. 79</ITEM>
</TABLE>
In this case, as Emma suggests, I'd probably do one of these last three--possibly the last and simplest of all. It must be granted, however, that its simplicity is gained at the cost of intervention in the text to the extent of distributing the CHAP and Pag. headings.
I ended up picking (3a), probably for no good reason.
<DIV1 TYPE="table of contents">
<PB REF="95">
<PB REF="95">
<HEAD>THE CONTENTS.</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 1</LABEL> <HI>OF the Chief Governor, the Soul.</HI> Pag. 1</ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 2</LABEL> <HI>Of the Faculties of the Soul.</HI> Pag. 4</ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 3</LABEL> <HI>Of the Hearts Corruptions.</HI> Pag. 6</ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 4</LABEL> <HI>The Necessity of Governing our Thoughts.</HI> Pag. 10</ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 5</LABEL> <HI>Rules of Practice.</HI> Pag. 14</ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 6</LABEL> <HI>Of the Affections of Love and Delight.</HI> Pag. 22</ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 7</LABEL> <HI>Of Joy.</HI> Pag. 24</ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 8</LABEL> <HI>Of Anger and Malice.</HI> Pag. 30</ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 9</LABEL> <HI>Rules of Practice Concerning Anger and Malice.</HI> Pag. 33</ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 10</LABEL> <HI>Of Envy.</HI> Pag. 39</ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 11</LABEL> <HI>Arguments to be Considered by way of Dis|swasion against Envy.</HI> Pag. 42</ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 12</LABEL> <HI>Remedies against Envy.</HI> Pag. 45</ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 13</LABEL> <HI>Of Impatience.</HI> Pag. 48</ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 14</LABEL> <HI>Motives to Patience and Contentedness.</HI> Pag. 53</ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 15</LABEL> <LIST><ITEM><HI>Rules for Contentment.</HI> Pag. 59</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Prayer.</HI> Pag. 65</ITEM></LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 16</LABEL> <HI>Of Hope.</HI> Pag. 68</ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 17</LABEL> <LIST><ITEM><HI>Rules to Govern our Hope.</HI> Pag. 75</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Prayer</HI> Pag. 77</ITEM></LIST></ITEM>
<LABEL><PB REF="96">18 Of Fear.</HI> Pag. 79</ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 19</LABEL> <LIST><ITEM><HI>Rules for Governing our Thoughts in Fears.</HI> Pag. 95</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Prayer.</HI> Pag. 100</ITEM></LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 20</LABEL> <HI>Of Cares.</HI> Pag. 102</ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 21</LABEL> <LIST><ITEM><HI>Rules Concerning Cares.</HI> Pag. 105</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Prayer.</HI> Pag. 110</ITEM></LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 22</LABEL> <LIST><ITEM><HI>Of Jealousie.</HI> Pag. 112</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Prayer.</HI> Pag. 109</ITEM></LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 23</LABEL> <HI>Of External Actions.</HI> Pag. 111</ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 24</LABEL> <LIST><ITEM><HI>Rules in External Actions.</HI> Pag. 113</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Prayer.</HI> Pag. 117</ITEM></LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 25</LABEL> <HI>Of a Wounded Spirit what it is.</HI> Pag. 118</ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 26</LABEL> <HI>What the Conscience is, and the Tranquili|ty of it.</HI> Pag. 121</ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 27</LABEL> <HI>What things Principally wound the Con|science.</HI> Pag. 124</ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 28</LABEL> <HI>Divine Considerations of the Afflicted.</HI> Pag. 127</ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 29</LABEL> <HI>Considerations of Humility.</HI> Pag. 131</ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 30</LABEL> <HI>Divine Considerations of our Repentance, forgiving Enemies, and the Love of God.</HI> Pag. 133</ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 31</LABEL> <HI>The Examination of the Conscience concer|ning our Repentance.</HI> Pag. 137</ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 32</LABEL> <LIST><ITEM><HI>Rules of Practice.</HI> Pag. 146</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Prayer.</HI> Pag. 150</ITEM></LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 33</LABEL> <LIST><ITEM><HI>Sense of Spiritual Wants.</HI> Pag. 152</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Prayer.</HI> Pag. 160</ITEM></LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>CHAP. 34</LABEL> <LIST><ITEM><HI>Fear of Temptations.</HI> Pag. 162</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Prayer.</HI> Pag. 171</ITEM></LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Close.</HI> Pag. 174</ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV1>
Source: notes file
Date: 17 Aug 2004
File name: Wn1058
Keywords: LIST, maths
I captured the simple sums that PDCC had made GAP Math, by making them <LIST TYPE="sum">, each part of the sum as an <ITEM> and the total as <ITEM ROLE="total">
PFS: this seems ok, but only barely: we don't want to slide too far down the slope toward trying to fudge descriptions of maths using non-maths tags.
Source: notes file
Date: 2005-02-28
File name: tech/Ww1558
Keywords: Verse, LIST
The text has a rhyming chronology (imgs 17-19), in which each event is followed by a number of years measured from then till now (1565). I distributed the word "Years" throughout and felt it looked like a rhyming list. So I made each line and item with an <L> embedded in it for the rhyming part,although it looks a bit ugly:
<HEAD>1. I shall present you with his Chronologie, it
being the last in Verse, and the most compleat of all
his others.</HEAD>
<ITEM><L>SInce all things were of God created good</L> 5605 Years</ITEM>
<ITEM><L>Since <HI>Noah</HI> ascended th'Ark t'avoid the flood</L> 3949 Years</ITEM>
<ITEM><L>Since God the Promise made to <HI>Abraham</HI></L> 3583 Years</ITEM>
<ITEM><L>Since th' <HI>Israelites</HI> from <HI>Egypts</HI> bondage came</L> 3153 Years</ITEM>
<ITEM><L>Since <HI>Solomon</HI> the Temple finished</L> 2669 Years</ITEM>
<ITEM><L>Since King <HI>Zedekias</HI> a Captive led</L> 2246 Years</ITEM>
PFS: this is ingenious, and certainly as good as anything I could come up with. The mixture of a verse structure (<L>s or <LG>s) with something table- or list-like is always a problem for us, and metrical calendars of all sorts head the list. You have chosen to emphasize the TABLE or LIST-like structure (and picking LIST over TABLE allowed you to go on a line-by-line basis, and therefore pay some respect to the verse). This makes sense. The only alternative I can come up with is to emphasize the verse structure instead, and reduce the count of years to milestones, as follows, which I am not sure is any improvement, especially in that it represents a rather strained use of MILESTONE:
<LG>
<HEAD>1. I shall present you with his Chronologie, it
being the last in Verse, and the most compleat of all
his others.</HEAD>
<L>SInce all things were of God created good <MILESTONE UNIT="Years" N="5605"></L>
<L>Since <HI>Noah</HI> ascended th'Ark t'avoid the flood <MILESTONE UNIT="Years" N="3949"></L>
<L>Since God the Promise made to <HI>Abraham</HI> <MILESTONE UNIT="Years" N="3583"></L>
<L>Since th' <HI>Israelites</HI> from <HI>Egypts</HI> bondage came <MILESTONE UNIT="Years" N="3153"></L>
<L>Since <HI>Solomon</HI> the Temple finished <MILESTONE UNIT="Years" N="2669"></L>
<L>Since King <HI>Zedekias</HI> a Captive led <MILESTONE UNIT="Years" N="2246"></L>,/p>