Fwd: msPart and msFrag

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Fwd: msPart and msFrag

Pietro Liuzzo
Sorry! I hit the wrong reply button!

Pietro Maria Liuzzo
cel (DE): +49 (0) 176 61 000 606
Skype: pietro.liuzzo (Quingentole)
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/pietroliuzzo



Inizio messaggio inoltrato:

Da: Hugh Cayless <[hidden email]>
Oggetto: Re: msPart and msFrag
Data: 6 marzo 2018 15:40:49 CET
A: Pietro Liuzzo <[hidden email]>

Hi Pietro!

Would you mind if I forwarded this to the list? Personally, I find your example pretty convincing. I think we'd want to use it as an example.

Hugh

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Pietro Liuzzo <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Hugh,

Thanks a lot,

I understand the rationale (I hope). I am copying here slightly edited the example I have described in the github issue.

We have 

- BNF et 45 and 

- BNF et 165, which contains leaves detached from BNF et 45.

not really an uncommon thing.

BNF et 45 is not a reconstructed manuscript, is there, just it does not have any more those leaves, which constitute a fragment of it in a previous stage of its existence.

So, for the encoding of BNF et 165 we are all set on msPart (it is a multipart object with a bit which is "different"), but for BNF et 45 I would not want to have two manuscript descriptions e.g.,

  • one for stage 1 of BNF et 45 using msFrag pointing to the current BNF et 45 and to the leaves in BNF et 165;
  • and one for stage 2 being the current BNF et 45 with a msPart corresponding to what is left after deprivation.

It would be much easier (and this is what we are currently doing) to have in the description of BNF et 45 msPart and a msFrag in the msDesc.

We are also working on formalising the relations between these parts as in the book "La Synthaxe du Codex", using an ontology based on that, which will describe formally what happens. But how do we encode it right in TEI?

Thanks a lot!


Pietro Maria Liuzzo
cel (DE): +49 (0) 176 61 000 606
Skype: pietro.liuzzo (Quingentole)
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/pietroliuzzo



Il giorno 06 mar 2018, alle ore 14:05, Hugh Cayless <[hidden email]> ha scritto:

It's not really a question of status. For a long time, there was only msPart, and epigraphers and papyrologists started (ab)using it to describe pieces of document that were in bits (some of which might be held in different collections). No one seemed to object too much that we were technically abusing msPart. Then Caroline Schroeder, who had a similar need, made a feature request for a re-wording of the description of msPart to accommodate "virtual" reconstructions of dismembered originals (https://github.com/TEIC/TEI/issues/505). I supported this, because it would help formalize a practice we were already engaging in. Council debated, and then went for advice to the larger community (http://tei-l.970651.n3.nabble.com/physically-dispersed-text-bearing-objects-td4027113.html). In the end, we decided to add a new element, msFrag, instead of modifying the definition of msPart. The latter would continue to handle what David Birnbaum called the "curatorial perspective" ("I have a multipart thing and I want to describe it") and the former could be used in any sort of scholarly reconstruction of a document that exists in parts which may have separate curatorial histories ("I want to show how this broken up thing once went together").

That's how we got where we are now. What I'm not clear on is whether what you and Pietro want is actually a hybrid of the curatorial description and scholarly reconstruction motives, which would demand a mixture of msFrag and msPart, or whether msFrag just looks inviting because you have an extra bit in an MS that isn't quite like the other bits. I think the latter is still an msPart.

All the best,
Hugh

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 3:02 AM, Torsten Schassan <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Pietro,

it's funny because just yesterday I submitted an issue at GitHub dealing
exactly with this:

https://github.com/TEIC/TEI/issues/1747

Hugh has explained, that msFrag might not -as one could expect- be meant
to contain information about fragments but to serve as container for
virtual reconstruction. I think that both the wording of the Guidelines
as well as this understanding haven't been clear (at least to me) and
that I would definitly like to see this changed: Fragments of all kinds
should be described in msFrag and parts of a composed manuscript should
be described using msPart.

I can't think of any manuscript scholar who would consider a fragment
e.g. in the binding to have the same status as some part of a compound
manuscript.


Best, Torsten


Am 06.03.2018 um 07:30 schrieb Pietro Liuzzo:
> Dear all,
>
> We have some cases of manuscripts where we would really like to be able to use msPart and msFrag at the same level inside a msDesc.
>
> For example we have a manuscript made of 3 distinct part plus one added to it later which came from another manuscript.
>
> We would like to have for the description of the manuscript which has the addition a msDesc like this
>
> <msDesc>
> <msPart xml:id="p1">
> </msPart>
> <msPart xml:id="p1">
> </msPart>
> <msPart xml:id="p1">
> </msPart>
> <msFrag xml:id="f1">
> </msFrag>
> </msDesc>
>
>
> The content model of msDesc has an alternate between msFrag and msPart which does not allow this.
>
> Thank you very much!
>
> Pietro
>
> Pietro Maria Liuzzo
> cel (DE): +49 (0) 176 61 000 606
> Skype: pietro.liuzzo (Quingentole)
> https://uk.linkedin.com/in/pietroliuzzo
>
>
>
>


--
Torsten Schassan - Digitale Editionen, Abteilung Handschriften und
Sondersammlungen
Herzog August Bibliothek, D-38299 Wolfenbuettel, Tel. <a href="tel:%2B49%205331%20808-130" value="+495331808130" target="_blank" class="">+49 5331 808-130
Fax -165
Handschriftendatenbank <http://diglib.hab.de/?db=mss>