msPart and msFrag

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

msPart and msFrag

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



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: msPart and msFrag

Torsten Schassan-2
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. +49 5331 808-130
Fax -165
Handschriftendatenbank <http://diglib.hab.de/?db=mss>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: msPart and msFrag

Hugh Cayless-2
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">+49 5331 808-130
Fax -165
Handschriftendatenbank <http://diglib.hab.de/?db=mss>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: msPart and msFrag

Torsten Schassan-2
Dear Hugh, dear all,

first of all I have to admit, that I did refer only to the explanation
in the technical description of the element msFrag when I stated, that
"The Guidelines" are not clear:

"(manuscript fragment) contains information about a fragment of a
scattered manuscript now held as a single unit or bound into a larger
manuscript."

This text is -I think- very supportive of our (Pietros and my)
interpretation. The chapter 10.11 in the Guideline isn't though.

But: As I re-read the mailing list archive, I realised that a) I already
took part in the discussion, only that I didn't remember it from the
start, that b) most (almost all) of the responses from manuscripts
"experts" have been in favour of extending the semantics of msPart (and,
additionally, a broader conceptual model underneath). The issue didn't
come up again on the main mailing list but msFrag was introduced in
v3.0.0 nonetheless.

I realised this fact only after a while and as I didn't consult the
Guidelines text (ch. 10.11) but only the definition page I was delighted
to see this mew element. Reason for this is that in the cataloguing
tradition fragments and pieces of compound manuscripts are described in
a very different way: The description of fragments is very much
abbreviated concerning all aspects (history, contents, codicology, etc)
whereas the description of a part of a compound is described using the
fully-fledged options of the description of a whole manuscript.

(Thus, I have to admit, it was another advantage to it was easy to
convince my cataloguers to use the newly introduced element!)

So far for history. Let's have a look at the present issue.

You argue that there should be a possibility to distinguish between
describing an existing manuscript using msPart even for fragments and
describing a virtual object whose parts are scattered all over the
place. I would like to answer that the distinction between the two
options isn't expressed through the use of either of these elements but
it can be expressed *only* by msDesc/msIdentifier! Only there you have
the place to *identify* the object you are describing and it is there
that you have to distinguish the physical "wholeness" of the object (all
in one place, one codex, one box, etc) and the virtuality of the object.
Whether you use msPart or msFrag in the description doesn't add a bit to
the epistemic status. (cf. the discussion about how to express the fact
that a manuscript might have been lost, or scattered, or destroyed;
https://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=TEI-MS-SIG;5914469.1708)

Having said that -and to answer your question "what we want"- I believe
there are other reasons to interpret msFrag as container for information
about a fragment:

- to repeat: the terminology of manuscript scholars is "fragment" for
pieces of manuscripts, kept within other manuscripts or completely
separately and "compound" for entire manuscript parts bound together to
one volume. (Though one has to remember, that there's a fine line
between these two things: What now is a compound could as well be a
fragment of a former manuscript. And we call the leaf that has been
taken from a manuscript a fragment while the remaining manuscript is a
fragment or fragmentary as well!) Thus, cataloguers will immediately
understand the element msFrag for what it might mean whereas the usage
of msPart seems to be slightly abusive.

- When we stick to the real/virtual distinction it might happen that a
fragment in-situ is described using msPart in the description of the
"real" manuscript and described using msFrag in the description of the
virtual reconstruction. There is no way to re-use the chunk of XML in
both contexts.

Opinions?

Best, Torsten


Am 06.03.2018 um 14:05 schrieb Hugh Cayless:

> 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. +49 5331 808-130
>> Fax -165
>> Handschriftendatenbank <http://diglib.hab.de/?db=mss>
>>
>


--
Torsten Schassan - Digitale Editionen, Abteilung Handschriften und
Sondersammlungen
Herzog August Bibliothek, D-38299 Wolfenbuettel, Tel. +49 5331 808-130
Fax -165
Handschriftendatenbank <http://diglib.hab.de/?db=mss>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: msPart and msFrag

Hugh Cayless-2
I don't think your and Pietro's use-cases are the same though. If I understand, he has a manuscript (A) that has been split into two parts (A1 & A2), the second of these being bound in a third (B), and he wants to use msPart with msFrag to describe A, A1 being a part, and A2 being a fragment. I can see the sense in this and think it's compatible with the current wording of the Guidelines, even though it isn't currently allowed by the content model of msDesc.

What you want is the opposite, instead of using msFrag to describe a part that used to belong to the current unit, you want to use it to describe a part that doesn't really belong in the current unit. I'm not arguing that this is a bad idea, just that it would mean a redefinition of msFrag. 

I'll stand back and let other voices contribute. I fear many of our UK colleagues may be avoiding academic lists at present due to the strike, so we shouldn't be too quick to finish the discussion.

All the best,
Hugh

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:47 AM, Torsten Schassan <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Hugh, dear all,

first of all I have to admit, that I did refer only to the explanation
in the technical description of the element msFrag when I stated, that
"The Guidelines" are not clear:

"(manuscript fragment) contains information about a fragment of a
scattered manuscript now held as a single unit or bound into a larger
manuscript."

This text is -I think- very supportive of our (Pietros and my)
interpretation. The chapter 10.11 in the Guideline isn't though.

But: As I re-read the mailing list archive, I realised that a) I already
took part in the discussion, only that I didn't remember it from the
start, that b) most (almost all) of the responses from manuscripts
"experts" have been in favour of extending the semantics of msPart (and,
additionally, a broader conceptual model underneath). The issue didn't
come up again on the main mailing list but msFrag was introduced in
v3.0.0 nonetheless.

I realised this fact only after a while and as I didn't consult the
Guidelines text (ch. 10.11) but only the definition page I was delighted
to see this mew element. Reason for this is that in the cataloguing
tradition fragments and pieces of compound manuscripts are described in
a very different way: The description of fragments is very much
abbreviated concerning all aspects (history, contents, codicology, etc)
whereas the description of a part of a compound is described using the
fully-fledged options of the description of a whole manuscript.

(Thus, I have to admit, it was another advantage to it was easy to
convince my cataloguers to use the newly introduced element!)

So far for history. Let's have a look at the present issue.

You argue that there should be a possibility to distinguish between
describing an existing manuscript using msPart even for fragments and
describing a virtual object whose parts are scattered all over the
place. I would like to answer that the distinction between the two
options isn't expressed through the use of either of these elements but
it can be expressed *only* by msDesc/msIdentifier! Only there you have
the place to *identify* the object you are describing and it is there
that you have to distinguish the physical "wholeness" of the object (all
in one place, one codex, one box, etc) and the virtuality of the object.
Whether you use msPart or msFrag in the description doesn't add a bit to
the epistemic status. (cf. the discussion about how to express the fact
that a manuscript might have been lost, or scattered, or destroyed;
https://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=TEI-MS-SIG;5914469.1708)

Having said that -and to answer your question "what we want"- I believe
there are other reasons to interpret msFrag as container for information
about a fragment:

- to repeat: the terminology of manuscript scholars is "fragment" for
pieces of manuscripts, kept within other manuscripts or completely
separately and "compound" for entire manuscript parts bound together to
one volume. (Though one has to remember, that there's a fine line
between these two things: What now is a compound could as well be a
fragment of a former manuscript. And we call the leaf that has been
taken from a manuscript a fragment while the remaining manuscript is a
fragment or fragmentary as well!) Thus, cataloguers will immediately
understand the element msFrag for what it might mean whereas the usage
of msPart seems to be slightly abusive.

- When we stick to the real/virtual distinction it might happen that a
fragment in-situ is described using msPart in the description of the
"real" manuscript and described using msFrag in the description of the
virtual reconstruction. There is no way to re-use the chunk of XML in
both contexts.

Opinions?

Best, Torsten


Am 06.03.2018 um 14:05 schrieb Hugh Cayless:
> 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">+49 5331 808-130
>> Fax -165
>> Handschriftendatenbank <http://diglib.hab.de/?db=mss>
>>
>


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: msPart and msFrag

Torsten Schassan-2
Dear Hugh,

I hope that others raise their voices too, it shouldn't be just the two
of us discussing. ;-)

You're right that Pietro's and my use cases aren't the same which turned
out in his second message.

And you're right that I understood msFrag differently from the beginning
but I still don't see the need for the distinction it suggests: msFrag
"only" used to represent the fact that it is a part that exist in
another manuscript or at another place? That's exactly what msIdentifier
is made for.

You are right, my understanding would result in a redefinition which
might be not possible (or desirable) at all, prohibited by the general
idea of developing the TEI. Still, I think my arguments for it aren't
bad but I would give in if backwards compatibility would be the most
important aspect even if the element hasn't been around for long.


In case that others back up the use of msFrag for virtual reconstructed
items, we should consider the following:

- change the wording of the short definition of the element in order to
make this very fact clearer as it is right now. Otherwise we could face
the problem that the effects of Pietro's and my requests would be the
same but this would be a dangerous thing as others might misunderstand
msFrag and interpret it the way I do/did;

- propose a way in the Guidelines of how to express the difference
between fragments and compounds. Before msFrag existed I used to use

<msPart rend="condensed">

for fragments, derived from the fact that the main difference between
the two in cataloguing is the way the information is presented.


Best, Torsten



Am 06.03.2018 um 16:09 schrieb Hugh Cayless:

> I don't think your and Pietro's use-cases are the same though. If I
> understand, he has a manuscript (A) that has been split into two parts (A1
> & A2), the second of these being bound in a third (B), and he wants to use
> msPart with msFrag to describe A, A1 being a part, and A2 being a fragment.
> I can see the sense in this and think it's compatible with the current
> wording of the Guidelines, even though it isn't currently allowed by the
> content model of msDesc.
>
> What you want is the opposite, instead of using msFrag to describe a part
> that used to belong to the current unit, you want to use it to describe a
> part that doesn't really belong in the current unit. I'm not arguing that
> this is a bad idea, just that it would mean a redefinition of msFrag.
>
> I'll stand back and let other voices contribute. I fear many of our UK
> colleagues may be avoiding academic lists at present due to the strike, so
> we shouldn't be too quick to finish the discussion.
>
> All the best,
> Hugh
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:47 AM, Torsten Schassan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Dear Hugh, dear all,
>>
>> first of all I have to admit, that I did refer only to the explanation
>> in the technical description of the element msFrag when I stated, that
>> "The Guidelines" are not clear:
>>
>> "(manuscript fragment) contains information about a fragment of a
>> scattered manuscript now held as a single unit or bound into a larger
>> manuscript."
>>
>> This text is -I think- very supportive of our (Pietros and my)
>> interpretation. The chapter 10.11 in the Guideline isn't though.
>>
>> But: As I re-read the mailing list archive, I realised that a) I already
>> took part in the discussion, only that I didn't remember it from the
>> start, that b) most (almost all) of the responses from manuscripts
>> "experts" have been in favour of extending the semantics of msPart (and,
>> additionally, a broader conceptual model underneath). The issue didn't
>> come up again on the main mailing list but msFrag was introduced in
>> v3.0.0 nonetheless.
>>
>> I realised this fact only after a while and as I didn't consult the
>> Guidelines text (ch. 10.11) but only the definition page I was delighted
>> to see this mew element. Reason for this is that in the cataloguing
>> tradition fragments and pieces of compound manuscripts are described in
>> a very different way: The description of fragments is very much
>> abbreviated concerning all aspects (history, contents, codicology, etc)
>> whereas the description of a part of a compound is described using the
>> fully-fledged options of the description of a whole manuscript.
>>
>> (Thus, I have to admit, it was another advantage to it was easy to
>> convince my cataloguers to use the newly introduced element!)
>>
>> So far for history. Let's have a look at the present issue.
>>
>> You argue that there should be a possibility to distinguish between
>> describing an existing manuscript using msPart even for fragments and
>> describing a virtual object whose parts are scattered all over the
>> place. I would like to answer that the distinction between the two
>> options isn't expressed through the use of either of these elements but
>> it can be expressed *only* by msDesc/msIdentifier! Only there you have
>> the place to *identify* the object you are describing and it is there
>> that you have to distinguish the physical "wholeness" of the object (all
>> in one place, one codex, one box, etc) and the virtuality of the object.
>> Whether you use msPart or msFrag in the description doesn't add a bit to
>> the epistemic status. (cf. the discussion about how to express the fact
>> that a manuscript might have been lost, or scattered, or destroyed;
>> https://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=TEI-MS-SIG;5914469.1708)
>>
>> Having said that -and to answer your question "what we want"- I believe
>> there are other reasons to interpret msFrag as container for information
>> about a fragment:
>>
>> - to repeat: the terminology of manuscript scholars is "fragment" for
>> pieces of manuscripts, kept within other manuscripts or completely
>> separately and "compound" for entire manuscript parts bound together to
>> one volume. (Though one has to remember, that there's a fine line
>> between these two things: What now is a compound could as well be a
>> fragment of a former manuscript. And we call the leaf that has been
>> taken from a manuscript a fragment while the remaining manuscript is a
>> fragment or fragmentary as well!) Thus, cataloguers will immediately
>> understand the element msFrag for what it might mean whereas the usage
>> of msPart seems to be slightly abusive.
>>
>> - When we stick to the real/virtual distinction it might happen that a
>> fragment in-situ is described using msPart in the description of the
>> "real" manuscript and described using msFrag in the description of the
>> virtual reconstruction. There is no way to re-use the chunk of XML in
>> both contexts.
>>
>> Opinions?
>>
>> Best, Torsten
>>
>>
>> Am 06.03.2018 um 14:05 schrieb Hugh Cayless:
>>> 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. +49 5331 808-130
>>>> Fax -165
>>>> Handschriftendatenbank <http://diglib.hab.de/?db=mss>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Torsten Schassan - Digitale Editionen, Abteilung Handschriften und
>> Sondersammlungen
>> Herzog August Bibliothek, D-38299 Wolfenbuettel, Tel. +49 5331 808-130
>> Fax -165
>> Handschriftendatenbank <http://diglib.hab.de/?db=mss>
>>
>


--
Torsten Schassan - Digitale Editionen, Abteilung Handschriften und
Sondersammlungen
Herzog August Bibliothek, D-38299 Wolfenbuettel, Tel. +49 5331 808-130
Fax -165
Handschriftendatenbank <http://diglib.hab.de/?db=mss>
MLH
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

msPart and msFrag

MLH
In reply to this post by Pietro Liuzzo
This is a very interesting discussion!
I think there are two separate questions.

(1) the distinction between a binding fragment or endleaf, and the composite manuscript consisting of several originally separate manuscripts bound together. Personally, I have been happy to use  `<msPart>` for all these cases;  one can use `@type` to provide a more precise indication of what the part is. For example, type="pastedown", type="endleaf", type="booklet" and so on. It might even be possible to agree on a controlled vocabulary...

(2) The question of describing a manuscript which is known to have leaves elsewhere. I would argue against Pietro that one might actually want two descriptions here - one of the surviving MS. and one of the reconstructed MS. Would it also be possible to describe BNF et 45 using only `<msFrag>`?

Matthew

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: msPart and msFrag

Torsten Schassan-2
Dear Matthew,

I agree, these are two different discussions.

Concerning your no 1): Where did you attach @type? It isn't allowed on
<msPart>. I thought that msPart/physDesc/objectDesc/@form is a proper place.

We use an ODD with this list of values for @form: "codex, fascicle,
leaf, scoll, other"

I would support your idea of having two descriptions. (As for example,
we would provide two different manifests using IIIF.)

But as I mentioned yesterday, this practice would result in one
description having msPart to describe the fragment, the other one using
msFrag. There would be two different @xml:ids, making it difficult to
understand that the two items are the same. Maybe/hopefully/only the
identical msIdentifier should make clear it's the same item. Which
leaves us with the question: If what we want to say is expressed by
msIdentifier, why then have different parent elements?

Best, Torsten


Am 07.03.2018 um 10:42 schrieb MLH:

> This is a very interesting discussion!
> I think there are two separate questions.
>
> (1) the distinction between a binding fragment or endleaf, and the composite manuscript consisting of several originally separate manuscripts bound together. Personally, I have been happy to use  `<msPart>` for all these cases;  one can use `@type` to provide a more precise indication of what the part is. For example, type="pastedown", type="endleaf", type="booklet" and so on. It might even be possible to agree on a controlled vocabulary...
>
> (2) The question of describing a manuscript which is known to have leaves elsewhere. I would argue against Pietro that one might actually want two descriptions here - one of the surviving MS. and one of the reconstructed MS. Would it also be possible to describe BNF et 45 using only `<msFrag>`?
>
> Matthew
>
>


--
Torsten Schassan - Digitale Editionen, Abteilung Handschriften und
Sondersammlungen
Herzog August Bibliothek, D-38299 Wolfenbuettel, Tel. +49 5331 808-130
Fax -165
Handschriftendatenbank <http://diglib.hab.de/?db=mss>
MLH
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: msPart and msFrag

MLH
Dear Torsten,
That's a good question about `@type` on msPart - it does seem to be allowed now, but I do seem to remember that it hasn't been in the past, is it perhaps part of a recent release? http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-msPart.html

I agree there is potentially some overlap with `objectDesc/@form`; our practice at the Bodleian is to use the latter simply for a high level classification of the type of object: codex, roll, or sheet.

As you say, creating two different descriptions of the same fragment using different elements does not seem ideal. Perhaps it would be useful if msFrag could point to a relevant msPart if one exists. Or maybe that is already possible?

Matthew

From: Torsten Schassan <[hidden email]>
Sent: 07 March 2018 10:59
To: MLH; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: msPart and msFrag
 
Dear Matthew,

I agree, these are two different discussions.

Concerning your no 1): Where did you attach @type? It isn't allowed on
<msPart>. I thought that msPart/physDesc/objectDesc/@form is a proper place.

We use an ODD with this list of values for @form: "codex, fascicle,
leaf, scoll, other"

I would support your idea of having two descriptions. (As for example,
we would provide two different manifests using IIIF.)

But as I mentioned yesterday, this practice would result in one
description having msPart to describe the fragment, the other one using
msFrag. There would be two different @xml:ids, making it difficult to
understand that the two items are the same. Maybe/hopefully/only the
identical msIdentifier should make clear it's the same item. Which
leaves us with the question: If what we want to say is expressed by
msIdentifier, why then have different parent elements?

Best, Torsten


Am 07.03.2018 um 10:42 schrieb MLH:
> This is a very interesting discussion!
> I think there are two separate questions.
>
> (1) the distinction between a binding fragment or endleaf, and the composite manuscript consisting of several originally separate manuscripts bound together. Personally, I have been happy to use  `<msPart>` for all these cases;  one can use `@type` to provide a more precise indication of what the part is. For example, type="pastedown", type="endleaf", type="booklet" and so on. It might even be possible to agree on a controlled vocabulary...
>
> (2) The question of describing a manuscript which is known to have leaves elsewhere. I would argue against Pietro that one might actually want two descriptions here - one of the surviving MS. and one of the reconstructed MS. Would it also be possible to describe BNF et 45 using only `<msFrag>`?
>
> Matthew
>
>


--
Torsten Schassan - Digitale Editionen, Abteilung Handschriften und
Sondersammlungen
Herzog August Bibliothek, D-38299 Wolfenbuettel, Tel. +49 5331 808-130
Fax -165
Handschriftendatenbank <http://diglib.hab.de/?db=mss>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: msPart and msFrag

James Cummings-5
In reply to this post by Torsten Schassan-2

I agree certainly that the definition of msFrag seems wrong to me:


>"(manuscript fragment) contains information about a fragment of a
>scattered manuscript now held as a single unit or bound into a larger
>manuscript."

I don't know why this needs to specify that it is 'scattered' or 'now held as a single unit or bound into a larger manuscript'. The last bit of that being potentially very confusing with those looking for information on how to describe composite manuscripts. Although a manuscript that is in fragments may be scattered, it may not be. Although those may now be held as a single unit, they also may still be dispersed. I'd propose that the description be more general "contains information about a manuscript (or similar) fragment" and examples of how to use this for the different cases put in the remarks and prose. But perhaps this is because I view 'fragment' in the much looser sense that Torsten mentioned.



Not striking today,

James 


--

Dr James Cummings, [hidden email]

School of English Literature, Language, and Linguistics, Newcastle University


From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list <[hidden email]> on behalf of Torsten Schassan <[hidden email]>
Sent: 06 March 2018 16:47:04
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: msPart and msFrag
 
Dear Hugh,

I hope that others raise their voices too, it shouldn't be just the two
of us discussing. ;-)

You're right that Pietro's and my use cases aren't the same which turned
out in his second message.

And you're right that I understood msFrag differently from the beginning
but I still don't see the need for the distinction it suggests: msFrag
"only" used to represent the fact that it is a part that exist in
another manuscript or at another place? That's exactly what msIdentifier
is made for.

You are right, my understanding would result in a redefinition which
might be not possible (or desirable) at all, prohibited by the general
idea of developing the TEI. Still, I think my arguments for it aren't
bad but I would give in if backwards compatibility would be the most
important aspect even if the element hasn't been around for long.


In case that others back up the use of msFrag for virtual reconstructed
items, we should consider the following:

- change the wording of the short definition of the element in order to
make this very fact clearer as it is right now. Otherwise we could face
the problem that the effects of Pietro's and my requests would be the
same but this would be a dangerous thing as others might misunderstand
msFrag and interpret it the way I do/did;

- propose a way in the Guidelines of how to express the difference
between fragments and compounds. Before msFrag existed I used to use

<msPart rend="condensed">

for fragments, derived from the fact that the main difference between
the two in cataloguing is the way the information is presented.


Best, Torsten



Am 06.03.2018 um 16:09 schrieb Hugh Cayless:
> I don't think your and Pietro's use-cases are the same though. If I
> understand, he has a manuscript (A) that has been split into two parts (A1
> & A2), the second of these being bound in a third (B), and he wants to use
> msPart with msFrag to describe A, A1 being a part, and A2 being a fragment.
> I can see the sense in this and think it's compatible with the current
> wording of the Guidelines, even though it isn't currently allowed by the
> content model of msDesc.
>
> What you want is the opposite, instead of using msFrag to describe a part
> that used to belong to the current unit, you want to use it to describe a
> part that doesn't really belong in the current unit. I'm not arguing that
> this is a bad idea, just that it would mean a redefinition of msFrag.
>
> I'll stand back and let other voices contribute. I fear many of our UK
> colleagues may be avoiding academic lists at present due to the strike, so
> we shouldn't be too quick to finish the discussion.
>
> All the best,
> Hugh
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:47 AM, Torsten Schassan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Dear Hugh, dear all,
>>
>> first of all I have to admit, that I did refer only to the explanation
>> in the technical description of the element msFrag when I stated, that
>> "The Guidelines" are not clear:
>>
>> "(manuscript fragment) contains information about a fragment of a
>> scattered manuscript now held as a single unit or bound into a larger
>> manuscript."
>>
>> This text is -I think- very supportive of our (Pietros and my)
>> interpretation. The chapter 10.11 in the Guideline isn't though.
>>
>> But: As I re-read the mailing list archive, I realised that a) I already
>> took part in the discussion, only that I didn't remember it from the
>> start, that b) most (almost all) of the responses from manuscripts
>> "experts" have been in favour of extending the semantics of msPart (and,
>> additionally, a broader conceptual model underneath). The issue didn't
>> come up again on the main mailing list but msFrag was introduced in
>> v3.0.0 nonetheless.
>>
>> I realised this fact only after a while and as I didn't consult the
>> Guidelines text (ch. 10.11) but only the definition page I was delighted
>> to see this mew element. Reason for this is that in the cataloguing
>> tradition fragments and pieces of compound manuscripts are described in
>> a very different way: The description of fragments is very much
>> abbreviated concerning all aspects (history, contents, codicology, etc)
>> whereas the description of a part of a compound is described using the
>> fully-fledged options of the description of a whole manuscript.
>>
>> (Thus, I have to admit, it was another advantage to it was easy to
>> convince my cataloguers to use the newly introduced element!)
>>
>> So far for history. Let's have a look at the present issue.
>>
>> You argue that there should be a possibility to distinguish between
>> describing an existing manuscript using msPart even for fragments and
>> describing a virtual object whose parts are scattered all over the
>> place. I would like to answer that the distinction between the two
>> options isn't expressed through the use of either of these elements but
>> it can be expressed *only* by msDesc/msIdentifier! Only there you have
>> the place to *identify* the object you are describing and it is there
>> that you have to distinguish the physical "wholeness" of the object (all
>> in one place, one codex, one box, etc) and the virtuality of the object.
>> Whether you use msPart or msFrag in the description doesn't add a bit to
>> the epistemic status. (cf. the discussion about how to express the fact
>> that a manuscript might have been lost, or scattered, or destroyed;
>> https://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=TEI-MS-SIG;5914469.1708)
>>
>> Having said that -and to answer your question "what we want"- I believe
>> there are other reasons to interpret msFrag as container for information
>> about a fragment:
>>
>> - to repeat: the terminology of manuscript scholars is "fragment" for
>> pieces of manuscripts, kept within other manuscripts or completely
>> separately and "compound" for entire manuscript parts bound together to
>> one volume. (Though one has to remember, that there's a fine line
>> between these two things: What now is a compound could as well be a
>> fragment of a former manuscript. And we call the leaf that has been
>> taken from a manuscript a fragment while the remaining manuscript is a
>> fragment or fragmentary as well!) Thus, cataloguers will immediately
>> understand the element msFrag for what it might mean whereas the usage
>> of msPart seems to be slightly abusive.
>>
>> - When we stick to the real/virtual distinction it might happen that a
>> fragment in-situ is described using msPart in the description of the
>> "real" manuscript and described using msFrag in the description of the
>> virtual reconstruction. There is no way to re-use the chunk of XML in
>> both contexts.
>>
>> Opinions?
>>
>> Best, Torsten
>>
>>
>> Am 06.03.2018 um 14:05 schrieb Hugh Cayless:
>>> 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. +49 5331 808-130
>>>> Fax -165
>>>> Handschriftendatenbank <http://diglib.hab.de/?db=mss>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Torsten Schassan - Digitale Editionen, Abteilung Handschriften und
>> Sondersammlungen
>> Herzog August Bibliothek, D-38299 Wolfenbuettel, Tel. +49 5331 808-130
>> Fax -165
>> Handschriftendatenbank <http://diglib.hab.de/?db=mss>
>>
>


--
Torsten Schassan - Digitale Editionen, Abteilung Handschriften und
Sondersammlungen
Herzog August Bibliothek, D-38299 Wolfenbuettel, Tel. +49 5331 808-130
Fax -165
Handschriftendatenbank <http://diglib.hab.de/?db=mss>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: msPart and msFrag

James Cummings-5
In reply to this post by MLH

Hi Matthew and TEI-L,


To answer your first question, the msPart element asked for membership of the att.typed class (which gives it the type and subtype attributes) from TEI P5 3.1.0.  Compare http://www.tei-c.org/Vault/P5/3.0.0/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-msPart.html

and http://www.tei-c.org/Vault/P5/3.1.0/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-msPart.html.  I mention this partly to remind people that all previous releases of the TEI P5 Guidelines are available in the TEI Vault. :-) 


There are global attributes to point from one element to another and say it is a copy of that one, or the same of that one, though I'm not sure they were intended for this kind of use case.


Best wishes,

James 


--

Dr James Cummings, [hidden email]

School of English Literature, Language, and Linguistics, Newcastle University


From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list <[hidden email]> on behalf of MLH <[hidden email]>
Sent: 07 March 2018 11:26:46
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: msPart and msFrag
 
Dear Torsten,
That's a good question about `@type` on msPart - it does seem to be allowed now, but I do seem to remember that it hasn't been in the past, is it perhaps part of a recent release? http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-msPart.html

I agree there is potentially some overlap with `objectDesc/@form`; our practice at the Bodleian is to use the latter simply for a high level classification of the type of object: codex, roll, or sheet.

As you say, creating two different descriptions of the same fragment using different elements does not seem ideal. Perhaps it would be useful if msFrag could point to a relevant msPart if one exists. Or maybe that is already possible?

Matthew

From: Torsten Schassan <[hidden email]>
Sent: 07 March 2018 10:59
To: MLH; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: msPart and msFrag
 
Dear Matthew,

I agree, these are two different discussions.

Concerning your no 1): Where did you attach @type? It isn't allowed on
<msPart>. I thought that msPart/physDesc/objectDesc/@form is a proper place.

We use an ODD with this list of values for @form: "codex, fascicle,
leaf, scoll, other"

I would support your idea of having two descriptions. (As for example,
we would provide two different manifests using IIIF.)

But as I mentioned yesterday, this practice would result in one
description having msPart to describe the fragment, the other one using
msFrag. There would be two different @xml:ids, making it difficult to
understand that the two items are the same. Maybe/hopefully/only the
identical msIdentifier should make clear it's the same item. Which
leaves us with the question: If what we want to say is expressed by
msIdentifier, why then have different parent elements?

Best, Torsten


Am 07.03.2018 um 10:42 schrieb MLH:
> This is a very interesting discussion!
> I think there are two separate questions.
>
> (1) the distinction between a binding fragment or endleaf, and the composite manuscript consisting of several originally separate manuscripts bound together. Personally, I have been happy to use  `<msPart>` for all these cases;  one can use `@type` to provide a more precise indication of what the part is. For example, type="pastedown", type="endleaf", type="booklet" and so on. It might even be possible to agree on a controlled vocabulary...
>
> (2) The question of describing a manuscript which is known to have leaves elsewhere. I would argue against Pietro that one might actually want two descriptions here - one of the surviving MS. and one of the reconstructed MS. Would it also be possible to describe BNF et 45 using only `<msFrag>`?
>
> Matthew
>
>


--
Torsten Schassan - Digitale Editionen, Abteilung Handschriften und
Sondersammlungen
Herzog August Bibliothek, D-38299 Wolfenbuettel, Tel. +49 5331 808-130
Fax -165
Handschriftendatenbank <http://diglib.hab.de/?db=mss>