Hoping to spark some comment. As you might expect, I'm *strongly* in favor
of permitting the use of msPart for describing fragments, so all I have are
quibbles:
1) I don't thing the distinction should be "composite" vs. "dispersed". The
fragments of a broken up (e.g. papyrus) text aren't necessarily scattered
(though they may be), but the text *is* in bits rather than joined or bound
together, and those bits may each have their own identifiers and their own
histories.
2) In the proposed text rewording "only remaining fragment of a former
codex", the word "codex" excludes papyri and inscriptions.
3) I'm not sure I understand the altIdentifier/msPart issue...
