encoding of translations partly new, partly taken over from a previous scholar (EGD 9.2.2, 9.2.3, 9.2.4)

[arlogriffiths]

@danbalogh — for tfc-campa-epigraphy, we have at out disposal a set of good English translations by R.C. Majumdar, but exclusively of Sanskrit inscriptions, or Sanskrit parts of inscriptions. Majumdar never includes any vernacular-language text segments in his translations. Rather than represent gaps in his translations as per 9.2.4, we wish to reuse whatever he has and fill the gaps with our own translations. We can furnish custom headers as per 9.2.3. Does this mean that we should use neither @source nor @resp? I find EGD unclear on this point. And the scenario in question, which I imagine may also arise in other corpora where Sanskrit exists side-by-side with a vernacular language, ought probably to be addressed explicitly in v2 of EGD.

[danbalogh]

Good question. One could argue for several solutions and it would indeed be best if we stuck to one. I note that I've just tried, and at present the schema reports an error if neither @source nor @resp are present on a translation division. This can of course be changed; the EGD is indeed unclear on this.

1. Use neither source, nor resp, only a credit note (requiring amendment of the schema). The rationale is that crediting the translation as a whole to either Majumdar or you would be misleading.
2. Use @resp to attribute the translation to you and add a credit note to say that you follow Majumdar in the translation of the Sanskrit parts. The rationale is that this would be analogous to our handling of responsibility for editions: if you have worked on it, then it is yours even if it is to a large part identical to something that has been published before.
3. Use @source to attribute the translation to Majumdar, and a credit note explaining that he only translates the Sanskrit and the rest is by you. The rationale is that Majumdar did the brunt of the work.

I think that my order of preference is 2-1-3 out of the above. What would you think best?

[danbalogh]

Returning to this matter, I now have a solid preference for solution 2 above. In the EGD, the line "@resp (§10.6.1), if the translation is by you and/or another project member" would then be changed to include "wholly or partly by you" etc., and the following points (with "when you feel that credit for a translation cannot be allocated correctly or fairly by using @source and @resp as above, you may add a credit note at the beginning of a translation") would stay the same. The partial reuse of translations may be mentioned explicitly here or in the section on encoding published translations. The rationale is much the same as for editions: if you have worked on it, then it is yours even if it is in many details the same as that of an earlier scholar, with whom you agree.