Subject: Re: tc-list A new ENTMP

From: "Dale M. Wheeler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 10:09:12 -0700

Dave Washburn wrote:

>While I can appreciate Larry H's comments about routing such a 
>project through the SBL, I have reservations for the simple reason 
>that "a camel is a horse that was designed by a committee."  In 
>order to g along with such a suggestion, I would need it stipulated 
>that independents (mavericks?) such as myself could continue to 
>transcribe in the agreed-upon format, and at some point when the 
>committee is formed and operational, submit their (our) material to 
>the group for checking and posting to the web.  The transcriptions 
>that I have done already, I did simply because I had the time and 
>the interest.  Had I been required to wait for a committee to give me 
>the go-ahead, I suspect the latter would have waned rapidly.
>

There already is such a committee in SBL, its the Electronic Standards
Group, which has been in existence for coming up on 5 years. The committee
has several subgroups working on the problems of encoding various types of
documents (I'm on the one dealing with Syntax Encoding, along with Kirk
Lowery of Westminster Seminary).  There is a subgroup wrestling with the
issues related to encoding ancient mss (I can't remember off the top of my
head who's responsible for that area, but I can find out from Bernard
Taylor, one of the co-chairs of the Group, or from Patrick Durusau). While
it may be true that in general committees move slowly, the flip side is
that in an area that is so rapidly emerging as electronic technology, it
provides a forum for dissemination of and interaction on information about
the latest technologies.  In the case of text encoding, most of us on the
committee are biblical scholars trying desparately to stay up with the
latest in technology; but there's no way that any one of us can.  Thus,
when we meet together and hear each other's yearly presentations we REALLY
learn alot about emerging technologies that might help us and that we all
need to take into consideration as we try to develop standardized
electronic texts.

The ancient mss group is wrestling with more than just having a
transcription of the letters themselves, but also other features of the
mss, like lacunae, correctors, paragraph/sentence spacing, end of line
indication, multiple letter formations, additional markings (eg., NS bar,
dieresis, breathers, etc.), and other features of the mss (codex vs scroll,
columnar layout, type of material, type of ink, style of writing, spelling
peculiarities, etc.).  This is why there is a general concensus in the
group that some sort of SGML/XML in conjunction with the TEI (Text Encoding
Initiative group) approach is needed; not only does such a mark up language
provide the preparer of the text with the tools to fully prepare a
representation of that text for posterity, but it also allows the user to
turn on/off various features via software and the print publisher to more
quickly produce books.

This past year we approved a standardized interchange format (NOT font
layout) for Hebrew characters based on the Unicode standard proposed by
Dick Whitaker.  Currently James Ernest of Hendrickson Publishers is working
on a similar interchange format for Greek characters.  These are to be
software "black boxes" that allow different software implementations to
talk directly to each other.  It has been suggested that either CCAT or the
interchange format become the standard for Greek and Hebrew transcriptions,
but as yet no decision has been made (though I'd say that my sense is that
the committee members are leaning toward CCAT, simply because its sort of
readable as it stands in raw format).

We've also discussed the issue of preparing "ASCII" databases for later
conversion to XML, and the general concensus is that since XML is still an
emerging standard and there is no agreed upon complete subset of tags (DTD;
cf. http://www.ccel.wheaton.edu/ThML/) for the types of texts we are
dealing with, that researchers should go ahead and create "ASCII" versions
of the mss, but document anything unusual (ie., outside of CCAT) they
include, so that they or others can later convert them to a standard
"biblical" XML/DTD.  For example, I have not converted the MorphGNT, -LXX,
or -BHS that I'm editing to XML from their current ASCII and CCAT formats,
simply because the final concensus does not yet exist as to what the DTD
will look like.  On the other hand, a new project like the Hebrew Syntax
Encoding Initiative (which will eventually be part of the MorphBHS) being
prepared by Kirk Lowery and Vince DeCaen (UToronto; cf.,
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~decaen/hsei/) is being done based on SGML
from the outset.

Someone from this list should join the SBL Electronic Standards Group to
insure that the work being done is relatively consistent with the emerging
standards, so that it doesn't have to be redone or go thru massive
conversion routines which might end up causing the loss of data.

***********************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Ph.D.
Research Professor in Biblical Languages        Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street                               Portland, OR  97220
Voice: 503-251-6416    FAX:503-254-1268     E-Mail: [email-masked] 
***********************************************************************

---

From: "Dave Washburn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 21:42:39 -0700

> need to take into consideration as we try to develop standardized

Do they do anything online?  Being unaffiliated, I often find it 
economically impossible to get to the annual meetings and have to 
rely on interaction forums such as this one to keep up.

> turn on/off various features via software and the print publisher to more

Agreed.  I have a couple of preliminary TEI/SGML versions of my 
transcriptions that James and I were working on, but haven't 
pursued the project since I lost track of him.  He was supplying the 
in-depth knowledge of TEI and SGML, I was supplying the free time 
to get it all down on disk.

> readable as it stands in raw format).

I agree that's a big plus.  For something based on Unicode to take 
hold, there will likely have to be some major attitude changes in the 
computer field, especially the PC branch.  

> will look like.  

Good idea.  This is essentially what I have been thinking: get it 
down, then make it pretty later.  (This is not to say that markup is 
nothing but cosmetic, it's just a convenient expression.)

On the other hand, a new project like the Hebrew Syntax
> conversion routines which might end up causing the loss of data.

By "the work being done" you mean the work being done by folks 
here, correct?

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.