Rome Wasn't Digitized in a Day - Council on Library and Information ...

104
orig<strong>in</strong>al); type of <strong>in</strong>scription; language, etc.). Individual “div” sections conta<strong>in</strong> the diplomatic
and edited version of the texts, <strong>in</strong> their orig<strong>in</strong>al languages, and an English translation. The
source of each is always acknowledged. The DTD already conta<strong>in</strong>s a scheme for richly
mark<strong>in</strong>g-up the contents of the texts themselves. We have recently decided only to mark textual
and editorial features; content such as names, places, occupations, etc., will be added (perhaps
<strong>in</strong> part through automated processes) at a later stage. Almost all of our tags follow, to the extent
possible, the accepted TEI and EpiDoc usages.
The project creators note that they would like to support a higher level of encod<strong>in</strong>g, but limited staff<strong>in</strong>g
and fund<strong>in</strong>g options have made this impossible. A database of about 1,000 <strong>in</strong>scriptions is available,
and users can search the <strong>in</strong>scription metadata, the text of the <strong>in</strong>scription and English translation, or
both, at the same time us<strong>in</strong>g a variety of options.
Another major resource is InscriptiFact, 344 an image database of <strong>in</strong>scriptions and artifacts that has been
created as part of the West Semitic Research Project (WSRP) 345 at the University of California. This
database provides access to high-resolution images of <strong>in</strong>scriptions (papyri, <strong>in</strong>cised <strong>in</strong>scriptions on
stone and clay, cuneiform tablets, stamp seals, etc.) from the Near Eastern and Mediterranean worlds.
The archive conta<strong>in</strong>s more than 250,000 images and is updated regularly. For access to the database,
an application form must be faxed. Hunt et al. (2005) have described the creation of this database and
the standards used <strong>in</strong> detail. InscriptiFact made use of many historical photographs that were often the
only source of <strong>in</strong>formation for many <strong>in</strong>scriptions, but also used a number of advanced photographic
techniques to better capture images of <strong>in</strong>scriptions on all types of objects and monuments.
One major challenge was that fragments of different <strong>in</strong>scriptions or collections of fragments were often
scattered among various museums, libraries, and archaeological collections. 346 To address this issue,
Hunt et al. advised that a fairly complicated catalog<strong>in</strong>g and data model needed to be developed:
Data <strong>in</strong> InscriptiFact are organized around the concept of a text, rather than a digital object or a
collection conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g texts. A “text” <strong>in</strong> this context is a virtual object <strong>in</strong> that a given text may
not physically exist at any one place <strong>in</strong> its entirety. That is, s<strong>in</strong>ce text fragments are often found
<strong>in</strong> scattered locations <strong>in</strong> various collections, InscriptiFact br<strong>in</strong>gs together images of a given text
regardless of the location of <strong>in</strong>dividual parts of that text <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>stitutions around the world (Hunt
et al. 2005).
The authors argued that neither FRBR nor unqualified Dubl<strong>in</strong> Core 347 readily represented the type of
metadata required by scholars of ancient texts. They noted that for such scholars, “a text is an
<strong>in</strong>tellectual concept” and scholarly catalog<strong>in</strong>g must be created for all of its manifestations and <strong>in</strong>clude
<strong>in</strong>formation about the physical objects that conta<strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>scription, the “<strong>in</strong>tellectual work of the
<strong>in</strong>scription itself,” as well as photographic images and digital images. Hunt et al. suggested that the
FRBR concept of the work could not be used for ancient <strong>in</strong>scriptions s<strong>in</strong>ce scholars have only the
<strong>in</strong>scribed physical object (manifestation) and certa<strong>in</strong> texts may have been subdivided <strong>in</strong>to many
physical fragments. “It is the job of archaeologists, l<strong>in</strong>guists, epigraphists, philologists, and other
specialists to try to reconstruct the orig<strong>in</strong>al text,” Hunt et al. (2005) ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed; “that is, figure out
what pieces fit together, how the text is organized, when it was <strong>in</strong>scribed, and what, <strong>in</strong> fact, the
344 http://www.<strong>in</strong>scriptifact.com/
345 http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/
346 This is similar to the problem communicated by Ebel<strong>in</strong>g (2007) regard<strong>in</strong>g the need to create “composite” texts for Sumerian cuneiform tablets that were
physically fragmented.
347 http://dubl<strong>in</strong>core.org/