|Title||Mark Twain’s Letters, 1853–1880|
Bibliographical description of responsible personnel. Please indicate names as “forename surname”.
|Edgar Marquess Branch, Michael B. Frank, Kenneth M. Sanderson, Harriet Elinor Smith, Richard Bucci, Victor Fischer, Lin Salamo, Sharon K. Goetz|
Format should be either yyyy, yyyyff. or yyyy-yyyy, e.g. 2007 or 2007-2013
|Date of last access||12.01.2018|
|hanrahan.elise (at) gmail.com|
Is it easily possible to describe the project bibliographically along the schema “responsible editors, publishing/hosting institution, year(s) of publishing”?
Are the contributors (editors, institutions, associates) of the project fully documented?
Does the project list contact persons?
|Selection of materials|
Is the selection of materials of the project explicitly documented?
Is the selection by and large reasonable?
|Archiving of the data
Choose yes if you have reason to believe that the archiving and long term sustainability of the data is cared for (e.g. because the data is part of a platform that cares for these aspects), even if the documentation makes no explicit statement about it.
Does the documentation include information about the long term sustainability of the basic data (archiving of the data)?
Are the aims and purposes of the project explicitly documented?
Are the methods employed in the project explicitly documented?
Does the project document which data model (e.g. TEI) has been used and for what reason?
Does the project offer help texts concerning the use of the project?
Does the project supply citation guidelines (i.e. how to cite the project or a part of it)?
Does the editon regard itself as a completed project (i.e. not promise further modifications and additions)?
Select yes, if there is either an explicit claim that continuous maintenance for the project is provided by some institution or you have strong reason to believe that this is the case, even if it is not explicitly claimed, otherwise select no.
Does the project provide information about institutional support for the curation and sustainability of the project?
Has the material been previously edited (in print or digitally)?
Does the edition make use of these previous editions?
Does the project offer an introduction to the subject-matter (the author(s), the work, its history, the theme, etc.) of the project?
Does the project offer a bibliography?
Does the project offer a scholarly commentary (e.g. notes on unclear passages, interpretation, etc.)?
Does the project include or link to external resources with contextual material?
Does the project offer images of digitised sources?
Does the project offer images of an acceptable quality?
Is the text fully transcribed?
Does the project offer texts of an acceptable quality (typos, errors, etc.)?
Does the project feature compilations indices, registers or visualisations that offer alternative ways to access the material?
|Types of documents
a single physical document or a series of documents belonging together, like a multi volume manuscript or a series of notebooks.
a single work, e.g. Plato’s Laches, which might be transmitted in multiple manuscripts.
Collection of texts:
several abstract texts across the documents of their transmission, e.g Aristotle’s Physics and Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics.
a collection of several works of one or several authors, e.g. the works of Plato.
a collection of personal or family documents or personal papers.
the collection of a repository.
texts documenting a legal fact by using a special form supporting its validity, e.g. the Magna Carta.
letters of one or several authors.
one or several diaries of one or several authors.
Which kinds of documents are at the basis of the project?
before 500 CE.
501 CE until 1500 CE.
1501 CE until 1800 CE.
1801 CE until today.
What era(s) do the documents belong to?
Which perspective(s) do the editors take towards the edited material? How can the edition be classified in general terms?
|Philology / Literary Studies|
any application (for personal computer or mobile devices) apart from browsers with which the project can be accessed.
a browser-version adapted for mobile devices.
the project or parts of as PDF files.
other access options apart from HTML-browsers.
Does the project offer any spin-offs?
Select this if the project allows browsing by elements used to structure a text, e.g. chapters, sections, paragraphs, etc.
Select this if the project offers to browse by individual source objects, e.g. by the individual letters in a letter-edition, the individual charters in a charter-edition, etc.
Select this if the project allows browsing by facsimile (e.g. through a gallery).
By which categories does the project offer to browse the contents?
|Authors, Works, Documents, Dates, Places|
Does the project offer a simple search?
Any search that offers more complex search than just a word or a phrase, e.g. boolean operators, wildcards, restricted search, etc.
Does the project offer an advanced search?
Any search that offers to substitute a defined set of possible characters by special characters, e.g. ‘king*’ searching for ‘king’, ‘kings’, ‘kingdom’, etc.
Does the search support the use of wildcards?
Select yes if it is possible to access an index of a search field, e.g. if the search field ‘author’ is present, a list of all authors the project contains is accessible.
Does the search offer an index of the searched field?
Any search that offers possible search as soon as the first characters are typed into the search field.
Does the search offer autocompletion or suggest functionalities?
Texts that explain how to use the search function, e.g. explanation of wildcard characters, operators, etc.
Does the project offer help texts for the search?
Who is the intended audience of the project?
|Scholars, Interested public|
Focuses on the visual layer of texts with additional information for access and understanding; no transcription.
Focuses on the width of a work, the documents of its transmission, its context; aims at completeness.
Related to the school of “documentary editing”, focuses on the documents rather than on abstract texts; tries to give truthful representations of the documents with (often: diplomatic) transcription and additional information.
Focuses on the text (not the visual layer) of documents, tries to give a transcription as accurate as possible.
Focuses on the genesis of texts, usually on the level of microgenesis (within a document) sometimes on the level of macrogenesis (across documents).
Work Critical Edition:
Focuses on the (potentially: complete) work of an author, aims at completeness on the level of the abstract work (and what needs to be presented to accomplish this).
Which type fits best for the reviewed project?
|Text Critical Edition|
Attempt to establish the transmission of the text, the results of which are traditionally reflected in a Stemma Codicum.
Accounts of the palaeographic dimension of a text.
Has the orthography been normalised according to a chosen standard (e.g. ’seyn’ to ’sein’).
Accounts of textual variants, i.e. textual differences between documents transmitting the same text.
Corrections or revisions have been applied to the text.
Comments regarding any of the phenomena mentioned before or other textual phenomena (not regarding the content).
In how far is the text critically edited?
|Transmission examined, Variants, Emendation, Commentary notes|
Is the data encoded in XML?
|Standardized data model||
Is the project employing a standardized data model (e.g. TEI)?
|Types of text
Any copy of historical documents.
Transcription of the document taking account of features like spelling, punctuation, abbreviations, deletions, insertions, alterations, etc.
A reading text as constituted by the editor(s), based on procedures like recensio, examinatio, emendatio, correction, normalization, modernization etc.
Any translations into languages different from that of the original text.
Scholarly commentary on the content of the documents.
Transformation of the text (e.g. an account book) into a database or representation of its content as RDF or the like.
Which kinds or forms of text are presented?
|Facsimiles, Edited text, Commentaries|
|Persistent Identification and Addressing
Digital Object Identifier according to the definition of The International DOI Foundation. The DOIs should be resolvable through http://doi.org/.
Archival Resource Key according to the definition of the California Digital Library. An ARK URL contains the label: ‘ark’ after the URL’s hostname.
Uniform Resource Name using the urn: scheme. URNs always start with the label ’urn:’.
Persistent Uniform Resource Locator using the PURL concept and administered by the Online Computer Library Centre.
Choose this if an external service other than the above options is used.
Choose this if the project promises permanent URLs or uses a local resolving system between URLs and underlying technical addresses but does not use any of the external services mentioned in the options.
Choose this if no persistent identifiers and adressing system are used at all.
Are there persistent identifiers and an addressing system for the edition and/or parts/objects of it and which mechanism is used to that end?
Are there technical interfaces like OAI-PMH, REST etc., which allow the reuse of the data of the project in other contexts?
Are the contents of the presentation freely accessible without subscription fee?
Is the edition Open Access?
|Accessibility of the basic data
Basic data: the data from which the HTML or other spin-offs have been produced, e.g. the XML of a specific part of the project. If the basic data is only accessible as a download package containing the entire data, select ’no’ here.
Is the basic data (e.g. the XML) of the project accessible for each part of the edition (e.g. for a page)?
Can the basic data be downloaded as a whole via HTTP- or FTP-Link, i.e. not only individual parts like the XML of a specific part of the project.
Can the entire raw data of the project be downloaded (as a whole)?
Can you use the data with other tools useful for this kind of content?
Are the rights to (re)use the content declared?
Creative Commons license CC0 applied.
Creative Commons license CC-BY applied.
Creative Commons license CC-BY-ND applied.
Creative Commons license CC-BY-NC applied.
Creative Commons license CC-BY-SA applied.
Creative Commons license CC-BY-NC-ND applied.
Creative Commons license CC-BY-NC-SA applied.
Work is in the Public Domain.
Under what license are the contents released?
|Editors||Edgar Marquess Branch
Michael B. Frank
Kenneth M. Sanderson
Harriet Elinor Smith
Sharon K. Goetz