Post correctionem/correxit elements

[lucianacioca]

I think we should have a corr. element (or p.c.), without the 'ex' (like corr. ex anima). The situation where you don't really have the full-bodied word before the correction is very frequent, and I want to make the case that we need the more simple, less engaged 'corr.'
Now, this is what we note with 'ante correctionem', or in our case 'corr. ex...':

The scribe wrote the whole word before and returned to add the correction, which in this case is from 'extensiones' into 'extensionis'. This is clearly obvious, we see the starting point, we see the end point.
This is an even clearer example of cor. ex:

However, here is this case:

The scribe started to write 'impossibile', but blundered the abbreviation, deleted it, and rewrote it better as he went. It would be redundant to say impossibile] corr. ex impossibile. It would also be incorrect, because he did not mean something else, there was no misreading to be transformed into the correct reading. Therefore, this is a simple correction that is common everywhere, a slip of the hand, a negligence. This should be: impossibile] corr.

And this case:

I might be able to see that he wanted to write 'incomplexe' the first time, but messed up the abbreviation for 'com'. However, as editor I might not want to take the risk, and besides he did not finish writing the word. He realized he made a mistake mid-word, scratched it and rewrote it. Whether or not that was an 'incomplexe', we cannot tell. And we should be able to render this situation with the appropriate type of caution by using the simple corr. In this particular case, there is no way we can safely say what the corrected word was, which makes the need for the simple corr even greater.

Ergo.

[stenskjaer]

I think it is a good point that sometimes you may want to annotate a correction where either (1) it does not make sense to talk about a before and after, or (2) you can see that there is a correction, but there is no meaningful way to determine what it is corrected from. In that case something more basic, but less semantically rich, may be a possibility.

Currently we have correction-addition, correction-deletion, correction-substitution, and correction-transposition which are all based on this pattern: The rdg is annotated as @type='correction-<subtype>' with either <del>content</del>, <add>content</add> or <subst><del>content</del><add>content</add></subst> as appropriate. (We also have correction-cancellation and althoguth it is a bit more complex it basically has the same pattern).

So there might be the possibility of just adding a base correction type.

What do we think about something like this:

correctiones simplices indicare
<app>
  <lem>incomplexe</lem>
  <rdg wit="#A" type="correction">
    incomplexe
  </rdg>
</app>
debet esse

It is less detailed, but sometimes maybe that is as detailed as we can get it. I kind of like the idea, actually. Are there strong reasons not to expand the schema to include it?