This article reflects on the modelization of texts of our cultural heritage in the current very early phase of Digital Philology by asking the question: what "form" are we forcing upon our texts? I explore three ways in which our textual models reflect our cultural and technological bias: first, the OHCO hierarchical model behind TEI XML; second, the sequential alphabetical model based on Western print, lying behind Unicode. A third aspect has been less explored in the scholarly discussion: citation protocols such as CITE/CTS are based on specific digital corpora. For example, the canonic corpora for classical Greek and Latin texts are TLG and PHI 5.3. Each of those corpora freezes author identification, authorship attribution, text boundaries, paragraph and line numbering in a specific canonic form. A dilemma arises: on the one side, interoperability requires that CTS URIs are based on a fixed textual canon, which hinders scholarly modifications of that canon; on the other side, the principles of philology suggest that URIs point to specific versions of texts, which in its turn cripples the interoperability potential of the protocol.
|Titolo della pubblicazione ospite||Filologia Digitale. Problemi e Prospettive|
|Numero di pagine||19|
|Stato di pubblicazione||Published - 2017|