I find both positions (James Cummings, Martin Holmes) very close to each other and to my own point of view. Would you agree if I describe them as some sort of modern textual materialism, where the 'text' always is something which is 'medialised' - which is an (digital) document rather than an abstract idea? And on the other hand we would have 'data' containing all the representational (and interpretative) information we have about a 'text' - I would call this a 'transmedial' text. As I would call the new media revolution a process of 'transmedialisation'.
patrick
[...]
At 02:41 PM 29/06/2004, you wrote:
Well, there could be a third area of discussion: What is the status of an electronic text and what does the borderline between "text" and "markup" really mean (for this case)? The problem here could be, that - if you believe in the ontological discrimination of "text" and "markup" - you
seem
to double the portion of "text" in question. But this is no question of practical relevance and only leads to a philosophical sophistry which
maybe
should better be left to an even more specialised debate (and my forthcoming PhD-thesis ;-)) ...
This is a fascinating topic. I'd argue that markup and its content is just data; "texts" are generated from markup using specific transformations for specific audiences or purposes. Given this:
<corr>Martin</corr><sic>Marnit</sic>
one "text" might show "Martin" with a mouseover popup indicating the misspelling in the original source, and another might show "Marnit" with a mouseover explaining the assumed correct form. The differences embody editorial approaches and purposes, and it's these that give birth to texts. The markup merely strives after completeness and transparency.
There is the feeling that many have that once you strip away the markup, you should be left with a bare version of 'the text'. They argue that all such alternatives should be stored in attributes (even with the aforementioned problems) in order to separate the interpretation from the text. But the problems with this are legion. Aside from the obvious need for markup inside these interpretative readings, the choice of markup itself is, of course, an interpretation of structure that they are imposing on the text. (That way lies overlapping hierarchy discussion again...) Moreover, the same process of stripping away the markup to reveal 'the text' is still simplistically possible, it is just that the act of 'stripping' in this case doesn't mean 'remove the tags' but instead process them so that 'the text' is the result. Whether 'the text' is with corrections made, abbreviations expanded, spelling regularised, or any of the other possible applications of this <choice> type of encoding is a decision that is made at the point of processing. But, I'm sure you know all this and I'm preaching to the converted. ;-)
-James
___________________________________________________________________ Universität zu Köln Historisch-Kulturwissenschaftliche Informationsverarbeitung Albertus-Magnus-Platz 50923 Koeln http://www.hki.uni-koeln.de/
Privat: Häuschensweg 2a 50827 Köln 0049 - (0)221 - 2805695 Sahle@uni-koeln.de http://www.uni-koeln.de/~ahz26/