[MEI-L] Conventional encoding of suggested accidentals (ficta)?

[Roland, Perry (pdr4h)]

Hi Peter,

They are indeed both nearly the same thing.  

<supplied>
  <accid accid="s" />
</supplied>

is more expressive in that it provides a more complete reason for the accidental, while 

<accid accid="s" func="edit"/>

is intentionally more compact, tying the func attribute directly to the accid element instead of requiring the additional nested markup.  This style is useful for direct translation from other encoding systems that don't have any notion of supplied vs correction vs regularization ... Unless the MEI is being transformed from another encoding scheme, the first example should be preferred.

I agree that the one sentence definition of <supplied> is somewhat misleading.  But, in section 11.4.1 "Omissions, Unclear Readings, Damage, and Supplied Readings", the MEI Guidelines provide a little more, well, guidance -- 

"Sometimes the editor provides information not present in the source material. These conjectures or emendations are marked up in MEI using the <supplied> element."

Would re-wording this sentence help clear up confusion?

--
p.

__________________________
Perry Roland
Music Library
University of Virginia
P. O. Box 400175
Charlottesville, VA 22904
434-982-2702 (w)
pdr4h (at) virginia (dot) edu
________________________________________
From: mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de [mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de] on behalf of Peter Stadler [stadler at edirom.de]
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 4:35 AM
To: Music Encoding Initiative
Subject: Re: [MEI-L] Conventional encoding of suggested accidentals (ficta)?

Well, I am confused now …
What is the difference between
<supplied>
  <accid accid="s" />
</supplied>
and
<accid accid="s" func="edit"/>?

To me, both look like editorial additions?!

An additional note on the description of <supplied>. (Having tei:supplied in mind) I find the current description "… illegible for any reason" misleading as it seems there *must* have been something written. But what about editorial additions due to simple omission in the authorial score? TEI simply says: "signifies text supplied by the transcriber or editor for any reason …"[1]

Best
Peter

[1] http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-supplied.html

Am 22.06.2013 um 20:10 schrieb Raffaele Viglianti <raffaeleviglianti at gmail.com>:

> Thanks Craig, I forgot about @func="edit". It certainly avoids confusion. I also see what you mean about @place; it probably won't hurt if Micah added it to his encoding, though.
>
> Raffaele
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Craig Sapp <craigsapp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Raffaele,
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Raffaele Viglianti <raffaeleviglianti at gmail.com> wrote:
> <supplied reason="ficta">
>   <accid accid="s" place="above"/>
> </supplied>
>
> I wouldn't mind, but crazy purists would complain that if you use this to indicate an editorial B-flat, then it is semantically incorrect since B-flat is technically not a musica ficta note.  So it is in general better to think of them as editorial accidentals used to chromatically inflect notes for performance, which usually happen to move the notes onto musica ficta pitches.
>
>
> -=+Craig
>



--
Peter Stadler
Carl-Maria-von-Weber-Gesamtausgabe
Arbeitsstelle Detmold
Gartenstr. 20
D-32756 Detmold
Tel. +49 5231 975-665
Fax: +49 5231 975-668
stadler at weber-gesamtausgabe.de
www.weber-gesamtausgabe.de


_______________________________________________
mei-l mailing list
mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-l