12. mars 2015 kl. 10:31 skrev arianna.ci...@roehampton.ac.uk: > Agreed. > > There are however at least two references in the TEI to issues concerning the > translation of verbal (and imprecise) temporal descriptions in the source > text to interpretations of numerical values. See > http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/CO.html#CONADA (in > particular the reference to mechanisms connected to the expression of ' > Certainty, Precision, and Responsibility') and also the reference to the > possibility to link a temporal expression in the document being encoded to an > explicit interpretation linking to a features structure mechanism outside of > the encoding of that document (see > http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ND.html#NDDATER). > > I see another issue concerning the interpretation of numbers into dating and > connected to what you say here. For example in the survey there are two > expressions: 'circa 1100' and 'circa 1172'. The number 1100 in natural but > also palaeographical language might denote a full century and not just the > year 1100, while 1172 is most likely used to denote that year only. So 'circa > 1100' could arguably be understood to mean '1091-1199' while 'circa 1172' > would be taken to denote a narrower interval range, say '1170-1174’.
This is interesting and common across data types. For instance, ‘north-north-east’ will often indicate a higher precision than ‘east’ because one cannot know if the latter is an expression in a system of 16, 8, 4, or 2; whereas the former is signalling a system of 16. Leif Isaksen pointed out a similar point in Ptolemy’s data: Isaksen, Leif. "Ptolemy’s Geography and the Birth of GIS." Digital Humanities: Book of Abstracts, University of Hamburg, Germany, July 16--22 2012: 236-239. Regards, Øyvind
