{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026691042047531994, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007312614259597806, 'mean_word_length': 5.304147465437788, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Works, Documents, Texts and Related Resources for Everyone

A common trope in discussions of scholarly editions in digital form is to praise, on the one hand, the extraordinary potential of electronic editions while, on the other hand, regretting that so few actual electronic editions come anywhere near realizing this potential (Robinson 2005). The potential is well-known: an explicit hyper-textual structure, publication in a distributed network environment, escape from the storage limit of the printed medium and possession of multiple layout possibilities (such as normalized and diplomatic transcriptions juxtaposed to facsimile images). The difficulties are also well-known: among them, the need for a formal, comprehensive and efficient encoding scheme to underpin scholarly editions in electronic form. The Text Encoding Initiative Guidelines provided a crucial element, by supplying namings, specifications and structure for key components of electronic editions: thus the specialized lower-level elements for manuscript description and critical apparatus, along with higher-level elements such as msDescription and facsimile. However, the TEI does not address two areas, crucial for the full encoding of scholarly editions in electronic form: 1. The naming of components of the editions: thus, of the works edited and their parts; the source manuscripts or print documents and their parts which carry the texts of the work edited; 2. The relationships between the components: thus, between the documents, the texts they carry, and the works which those texts instance. This paper reports on a scheme prepared by the authors, designed to provide a solution to the problems proposed in both areas. The provision of a shared epistemological framework for handling works, texts and text sources (cf. Buzetti 2009) will also facilitate the shift from stand alone publishing frameworks to shared distributed on-line environments, enabled by powerful and flexible underlying infrastructures, 1 generally named Virtual Research Environments (Fraser 2005, Dunn et al. 2008). This framework will advance interoperability, long a problem area in electronic texts. Interoperability has been defined by IEEE as " The ability of two or more systems or components to exchange information and to use the information that has been exchanged ". 2 A recent briefing paper by Gradmann identifies four different levels of interoperability, one built on the top of the other. From the bottom these levels are technical/basic, syntactic, functional and semantic. While technologies such as TCP/ IP, HTTP and XML already provide sound basis for interoperability at the lower levels, much work is still to be done at the top levels. The semantic …