Review Comment:
This manuscript was submitted as 'full paper' and should be reviewed along the usual dimensions for research contributions which include (1) originality, (2) significance of the results, and (3) quality of writing.
The topic of this paper is interesting and relevant, and I hope to see a paper published. The need for a model as the one described here is clearly there and the model itself is an interesting attempt to solve a number of problems. However, there are some fundamental questions that in my opinion needs to be clarified before the paper is ready for publication.
The paper describes DRMtex, ”created to describe ancient texts and other semiotic features appearing on inscriptions, papyri, manuscripts and other similar supports.” But it venture to do this without taking into consideration the tradition which is at least hundreds of years, if not millennia, old: scholarly edition and textual studies. This, combined with a simplified at best definition of the core concept of text leads to a number of unfounded claims about the object of study. There is also a clear bias towards the transition of epigraphy at the cost of the traditions of manuscripts studies, including but not limited to palaeography. I will give some examples of the consequences of this below.
The problem outlined here is not easy to solve in one paper, given the vast size of the research one potentially would have to study and the lack of agreed-upon definitions of ’text’. I would suggest a strategy based on two pillars.
I. Update the definition of text, and the relationship between oral and written text, to include more recent literature, and try to focus on the literature that is seen as central in the disciplines themselves. Put special focus on digital palaeography and digital scholarly editing.
II. Refrain from claiming that the model is based on what text _is_ and instead suggest a _pragmatic_working_definition_ of text. That is, rather than saying ”text is xxx, therefore…” I would suggest saying ”given that we assume text to be xxx, we suggest that…”
Some specific claims that I see as highlighting the problems outlined above:
Page 1:
”the fundamental concepts for the correct and complete rendering of textual objects” The idea that the textual object can ever be rendered correct and complete is counter to significant research traditions in textual studies at large. See Jerry McGann and Elena Pierazzo for recent examples in literary and textual studies and scholarly editing.
Page 3:
In order to clarify the relationship between oral and written text, one text from 1972 is quoted, seemingly also to prove that speech has priority over text. There is a huge literature discussing this, including claims for the opposite (see, e.g. Derrida).
As for semiotics, only Saussure is quoted. There is no reason to question the historical importance of his work, but more than 100 years of research has taken place since 1916 which is not mentioned at all here.
As for the complexity of defining text at all, I would here advise the authors to look into Patrick Sahle’s seminal work ”Digitale Editionsformen” from 2013 where he suggests that any serious descriptive definition of ’text’ needs to contextualise the definition into at least six different traditions, as expressed in his so-called text wheel: http://computerphilologie.tu-darmstadt.de/jg08/media/fischer-6.png
For clarifying the relationship between what is sometimes called text and token, digital palaeography, for instance as researched by Arianna Ciula and Peter Stokes, would be a good starting point.
Page 4:
”It is evident, in this perspective, that the study of ancient texts typically starts from the analysis of the physical characteristics of the text itself before moving to the investigation of their archaeological, paleographic, linguistic and historical features.”
I think this is far from evident and I would like to see this claim supported by scholarly evidence from central works in the disciplines in question.
To end this review on a more positive note — my claim above that I want to see an article along the lines of this one published is truthful — I would say that the model as presented here seems quite good and has a significant potential. Following up on the now 15-20 year old tradition of integrating TEI and TEI based standards with ontologies is important. I would suggest the following for the future development of the model, and for a future version of this article:
1. To include domain experts and to take into consideration the research literature in all the central areas to be covered by the ontology (and maybe leave some traditions out for now, to come back to them later — focussing on epigraphy could be part of a solution).
2. To accept once and for all that simple definitions of ’text’ is not possible and try to find a workable way to establish the concept without claiming it is covering all meanings across several disciplines.
Any solution, in my opinion, has to include connecting the research to recent central literature in each discipline.
|