Use of <ref>
#298
Comments
|
Thanks, I have not heard this before. I'm very happy about lifting the part about using n to identify the repository. As for the filenames, I think it would be better to keep them systematic and use the full prefix all the time, perhaps also the .xml extension. That way there is, I think, a better chance of interpreting the files if someone else comes across them years from now and does not necessarily have access to your processing. If you disagree with that and say that it is technically not a problem, then I accept that, but even then, I would prefer to have just a single "legitimate" way to encode such references. I don't think it's good to have a guide that says "you can do A, B, C or D and it doesn't matter which, so just pick whichever you like at the moment". Whichever is chosen, the schema may need some alterations. At the moment, @n still comes up in Oxygen as a permitted attribute for |
|
Using the full file name is indeed probably the safest bet, if only for the autocomplete feature you pointed out. This might also discourage people from inventing file names; I am seeing a lot of names like |
|
Right. Shall we then agree that |
|
OK, perfect. |
|
Curiously, I had never been aware of the tehoretical obligatuon to use @n on @michaelnmmeyer : can you extract a list of non-compliant names like AirAsih.xml and WanuaTengahIII.xml, so I can fix them? I hope you are aware that in general all file names bearing the string IDENK are not yet FNC-compliant in that they use inscription names rather than numbers, as temporary solution while we are waiting for the IDENK database (idenk.net) to deliver inscription numbers for these items. This will start to happen within the next half year, I hope. |
|
Here is the list of references. It is probably too long to be useful, though.
|
|
BadamiCalukya00004-Kopparam-Pulakesin.xml was in my corpus, now corrected. |
|
Thanks. I have converted the above list to a task list with check boxes and started weeding out offending cases listed above. Examples of correct references for the tfc repositories:
Don't hesitate to ask if anything more needs to be explained. 
|
|
@michaelnmmeyer : Do you know why I can't tick the boxes above? |
|
@ekobastiawan I have no idea. This might require an administratror account. |
|
I have added @ekobastiawan among assignees. Can you try again now, Eko? If that too fails, we will need to split up the above list and create separate list per repo. But even on tfd-nusantara-epigraphy, does Eko have administrator rights? |
|
I am able to tick and untick. I'm assigned, but not an admin as far as I know. So I guess Eko should fine now that he is assigned. |
|
@arlogriffiths : I still can't tick the boxes |
|
I suspect the problem has to do with other-than-admin-level access to the repo, which Dan does but Eko doesn't have. Can you look into this, @michaelnmmeyer? Can we do something about it? |
|
Sounds logical. I'm afraid I have no idea how to check my level of access. |
|
@ekobastiawan |
|
@ekobastiawan I gave you write access to the repo. |
|
@michaelnmmeyer Thanks a lot, I am now able to tick the boxes |
|
Dear all, I cannot check the boxes in the list above. I think that I am already signed in the Github. Maybe I have not been given access or was at the wrong place. Can you please help? Best, |
|
Dear all, I've for now made the modifications for the cam corpus. I haven't been able to locate the cases of C0087.xml |
|
|
Dear all, There is also problem in my files (K. 11, K. 56, K. 77, K. 417 and K. 582). Among them, only K. 56 has a <ref target="DHARMA ...> markup. And I don't see the K. 136.xml in the folder "xml-provisional". Actually, there are files, especially the hospital inscriptions of Jayavarman VII (K. 12, K. 368, K. 375 ...) which contain many markups. They conform to the norm, i.e. without the @n. Best, |
|
I think you may have misunderstood the nature of the list above. It is not a list of files to be opened and checked, but a list of strings to be searched (in your case in tfc-khmer-epigraphy) and to be replaced by the correct string. For example, if you use "Search/Replace in files" to search the string K0379.xml, you will find one occurrence, namely in the file DHARMA_INSCIK00216-S.xml. In that file, you need to replace |
|
Yes, it is. Thank you! It seems that there is one zero missing in the file name. Should it be "DHARMA_INSCIK00379" instead of "DHARMA_INSCIK0379" ? |
|
Indeed, small typo from my side. Sorry. Please do add that zero. |
|
Well noted with thanks. |
|
Dear all, FYI, I have corrected the related to K0011 through K1284 in the list above. I hope that they are all fine now. Best, |
|
@chhomkunthea You should now be able to tick boxes. |
|
Thank you very much! Yes, it's done now. |
|
@michaelnmmeyer : could you help us track down C0087.xml and C0096.xml? |
|
@arlogriffiths They have been corrected in the meantime. |
|
Thanks. @michaelnmmeyer : can you tell me where to look for Dk0019.xml and Dk0020.xml? @ryosukefurui : all remaining items concern tfc-bengalcharters-epigraphy: can you take care of them? |
|
I have just corrected relevant ref in DHARMA_INSBengalCharters00065.xml, and ticked the list. Excuse me for a delayed response. |
|
Dk0019.xml and Dk0020.xml are both in tfb-daksinakosala-epigraphy/texts/DHARMA_INSDaksinaKosala00021.xml |
|
Thanks. So the remaining work for @NatasjaSB. I don't know if she is still following github, and anyhow I assume @danbalogh can easily make the small modifications in her xml files on her behalf. So @danbalogh, could you take care of this and then close this issue? |
|
I've made the correction in the DaksinaKosala file. Natasja has recently renamed her files at our request, to follow the pattern used in other collections (INSDaksinaKosala instead of INSDk), and I assume that she did not think to check for and update existing references to files when she did that rename. Her repository seems to contain no other obsolete references. |
A minor remark I am not sure I made: when referring to inscriptions with
<ref>(EGD §10.4.6.Referring to inscriptions in the DHARMABase), the use of@nfor indicating a repository is not needed (because all texts share a single namespace), and adding the.xmlextension is also unnecessary.Thus
<ref n="tfa-pallava-epigraphy" target="INSPallava00001.xml">Pallava 1</ref>can be written
<ref target="INSPallava00001">Pallava 1</ref>Internally, all variations
DHARMA_INSPallava00001,DHARMA_INSPallava00001.xml, andINSPallava00001,INSPallava00001.xmlare made to point to https://dharmalekha.info/texts/INSPallava00001.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: