It seemed a necessary act of piety to respond positively to a request for help from my former colleagues at the Oxford Text Archive, when they finally got around to considering the conversion of the latest (and one must fear the last) tranche of EEBO texts from the Text Creation Partnership. The conversion into a TEI P5 compatible version of the vast majority of EEBO-TCP phases 1 and 2 texts and their subsequent upload to a gazillion github repositories was accomplished by a team headed by Sebastian, back in the days when TEI Simple Print was new, and we were all a bit more bushy-tailed and bright eyed. Now the OTA has received their last tranche of TCP phase 2 texts, it should not (surely) be too much of a sweat to crank them through the same conversion process and deposit the results in Github too. Though of course nothing is ever quite that simple.
The XSLT script which does the heavy lifting is called tcp2tei and (thank you Sebastian) here it is, safe and sound in the TEI Stylesheets repository. And it still works. There is even a shell script for creating a new github repo and uploading each file to it from the same masterly hand; this one nearly works, as a consequence of github having got a little more fussy about authentication mechanisms in the last five years, but that’s not hard to fix. So I should just declare victory and move on.
On closer inspection however three issues have surfaced (so far).
Firstly, the catalogue numbers. In the current TCP P5 texts, each TEI header has a string of <idno> elements supplying its identifier in the Michigan DLPS database, the identifiers of one or more MARC records from OCLC or UMI catalogues, its Proquest number, identifiers in one or more standard bibliographies (ESTC, Wing, STC, Evans etc.) and the number of the image set which was scanned. For some reason I do not understand, not all the new texts supplied to the OTA have their full complement of these identifiers. For example, of the 6498 titles supplied, 3062 have OCLC Marc record identifiers, (discounting an additional 187 duplicated OCLC records in which the record identifier is prefixed redundantly by “ocn”). None of the 6498 has an image set number. Only 2987 have a Proquest identifier, and it’s always the same as the MARC catalogue number. And 963 have no bibliographic identifier of any sort.
No matter: after my skirmishes with EEBO metadata last summer (reported at https://foxglove.hypotheses.org/date/2020/08) , I am confident of being able to recover missing catalogue numbers from at least two different sources: one being Paul Shaffner (whom God preserve)’s
eebodat1.xml and the other being Proquest (whom God has recently abandoned)’s title list. The stylesheet I am working on to do mundane things like change the availability statement in the header is duly expanded to supply the missing <idno>s. I decided to add the new Proquest numbers (the so called GOID) even though these are not present in the existing files.
Secondly the image links. One reason for caring about the Image Set numbers is that they are used as part of the address to which @facs attribute values scattered throughout the texts are mapped. Back in the day, it was possible to link directly to a page image in this way. This facility is however no more: Proquest (and presumably their successors) will only allow you to access individual page images by using their own interface, so far as I can tell. It is possible to access the same images via the JISC Historical Dataset sites by judiciously stringing together values from those <idno>s, but I have yet to find a reliable way of doing so for individual pages. For the present therefore the @facs values will remain a touching reminder of how things once were. Though I did add a link to the JISC site into the new headers, along with other useful documentation.
And thirdly the real subject of this entry: what to do about @rend. Now, I have long believed that the TCP P5 texts are not only valid TEI P5 XML but also valid against a specific TEI schema, to wit the schema named (after much argument and in the teeth of some opposition) TEI Simple Print. I distinctly remember (or think I remember) Sebastian and Magdalena putting quite a bit of effort into enhancing that schema with lots of @rendition values to match EEBO-TCP requirements. So when I actually tried validating my nice new files against it, I was a bit puzzled to find that they didn’t.
Specifically, the attribute @rend is not available in the TEI Simple schema, and has not been since at least August 2016. In its place, I should be using @rendition to point to one or more of the predefined simple:rendition values. So I spent an hour or two tabulating all the @rend values used in the new files, and finding their simple:equivalents. This proved easy for most cases, but impossible for just a few (7), some of them esoteric (
@rend=’upsideDown’ anyone?), but others (e.g.
@rend=”margQuotes” and its friends
margDblQuotes) quite frequent and clearly necessary. I also realised (belatedly) that allowing my script to make this change was going to make my new texts inconsistent with the existing ones. For the existing TCP P5 texts are not valid against TEI Simple either, I discovered, and somewhat to my embarassment: they use @rend with all sorts of exotic values all over the place. They do use @rendition, but in one way only: some <pb/> elements have @rendition=’simple:additional’. This was entirely mysterious to me for a while (until Paul remembered what it was for). In any case, I will worry about that when a new systematic revision of the whole collection is undertaken, should that day ever dawn. For the moment, I will grit my teeth, stick with @rend, and assure anyone who asks that all TCP P5 texts are valid against, err, TEI ALL. This is known as biting the bullet, I believe.
Update: 10 June 2021. I uploaded all 6498 new texts to new repositories in the Github textcreationpartnership collection over a period of 24 hours last week. And, at somewhat greater length, I have now updated my repository at eebo-bib to describe more precisely what I did to create a TEI-compatible TCP bibliography. Definitely time to declare victory and move on.