Subject: Re: tc-list Collations and Nu-movables

From: "Roderic L. Mullen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 18:31:53 -0400

Sorry to do this on list, but Bruce is your machine back in operation?  I'm
ready to collate if it is.  Thanks, Rod Mullen

At 02:51 AM 9/12/98 -0500, you wrote:
>When I first started computerizing the IGNTP John data in 1989, it was on
>a large-for-that-time 60 mB hard disk.  While that disk would still easily
>hold the data several times over today, if that computer still worked, now
>I do the weekly backup of the data to a CD that holds 10 times that much.
>Although no one would seriously make a case that we're going to get such
>an onslaught of help in completing collations that our collection of data
>will outpace advances in computing power and storage, the application of
>relational database techniques to the process makes that a moot point.
>We've already got a catalog of most of the variants, significant and
>trivial, so don't need more space for that; from now on we merely store
>the references to that catalog of variants for each manuscript, which
>requires only minimal storage.  This also minimizes the processing power
>required; today's PCs have far more processing power than needed for
>anything from producing an apparatus to a full classification analysis.
>These techniques also greatly minimize the collation time, since the
>collator enters a single keystroke for each variant.  Those collators
>who've gone through the initial learning curve for the collating software
>report significantly reduced time in completing a collation. 
>
>For the majority of our list, I'm supposing, who aren't much interested in
>this computer debate, may I return the discussion to Jean-Francois'
>original questions:  it *is* technically possible to fully collate
>manuscripts, whether on paper or on computer; many of us are doing it.
>Mike, Maurice, and others have already given several good reasons for
>doing full collations, let me add another.  There are dozens of published
>collations, representing thousands of hours of past scholars' work,
>readily available to us.  Why aren't we making good use of these
>collations for current research?  Among other reasons (quality, etc),
>because they weren't full collations.  Most of them note that
>"insignificant" variants were not included without fully specifying what
>types of variants those were, leaving us to guess.  With the technology
>available to us which minimizes this inconvenience, there's no excuse for
>us leaving the same legacy.  But maybe we won't learn from history. 
>
>Now for my quarterly appeal:  the IGNTP is committed to making our full
>data available to everyone.  However, we first need collators; please
>contact me if interested.  Competent collators only, of course.
>
>Bruce Morrill   [email-masked]
>
>