Double names.
During the last week of encoding, I have been dealing with a bunch of “double names” (or even “triple names”). The typical example is a character that had (fairly accurate) equivalents in the ancient Greek and Roman worlds, and then sometimes a “third” name in medieval Christianity. A fex examples will make this point clearer: Medusa-Gorgone, Furie-Eumenidi, Parche-Fate-Fato etc. In these cases, for the glosses, we employ the tool seealso=”", which could be useful for names as well.
Roberto Bacci
Great point. We have a similar situation with historical names (such as Ottaviano and Augusto - or worse, all the names for Hell) in the first block of encoding. This fact, together with Massimo’s observation that we would benefit from a combined name list, brings up the problem of standardization across the projects.
With apologies in advance for what may be a dumb question: is the name/place list available for Villani? If we don’t work to standardize before we get too much further along, we could be in for some very nasty surprises later.
Not a dumb question at all. No lists are available for Villani as yet; the encoding is (hopefully) in the last stages of proofreading. As soon as that’s done and we put the text up there, we can generate name lists and get to work comparing them with the lists in the Esposizioni.
Standardization across projects is going to be tricky: this is the trade-off for the decision to allow people to encode idiosyncratically (as opposed to coming up with a DTD first, fitting encoding into it later). Not a bad trade-off, since it allowed us to encode a lot of text relatively quickly and gave the encoders freedom of analysis without worrying about how to fit their thoughts into an unfamiliar box. But yes, standardizing must be a lengthy and careful process. Perhaps for another grant?