Re: [tei-council] MsPart Comments

I might add that this is not for manuscript catalogers. It's for people like epigraphers and papyrologists. MS people seem to get hung up on this because they would never do it, but it's not *for* them. On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Martin Holmes wrote:

HI Peter,

I think I would insert "text bearing" here:

We lack a mechanism to describe physically dispersed text-bearing objects as one logical object.

I'm assuming that we are distinguishing text-bearing objects from the broader putative <object> object.

"case off" should be "case of".

Finally, I think a summary sentence would help:

The choice is between 1) broadening the definition of <msPart> so that it can cover not only parts of a manuscript which were originally independent and later gathered together, but also parts of a manuscript which was originally whole but is now in fragments; and 2) creating a new element, <msFrag>, for the latter case.

Hope this helps, Martin

On 15-03-12 09:10 AM, Peter Stadler wrote:

...

ok, could someone please review my short summary?!: Thanks Peter

We lack a mechanism to describe physically dispersed objects as one logical object. Currently, the guidelines indicate the usage of <altIdentifier> for ‘scattered’ manuscripts [1] which seems not very convincing. A FR was made for redefining the semantics of <msPart> [2] to include the case off scattered manuscripts. (At present, <msPart> is only defined to "contain information about an originally distinct manuscript or part of a manuscript, now forming part of a composite manuscript“ [3]). Another proposed solution is to add a new dedicated element <msFrag> (or whatever name …) which would behave pretty much like <msPart> (in terms of content and context).

[1] http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/MS.html#msid [2] https://sourceforge.net/p/tei/feature-requests/505/ [3] http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-msPart.html

Am 12.03.2015 um 16:55 schrieb James Cummings <

...

james.cummings@it.ox.ac.uk>:

Both good ideas.

James

-- Dr James Cummings, Academic IT, University of Oxford

-----Original Message----- From: Peter Stadler [stadler@edirom.de] Received: Thursday, 12 Mar 2015, 15:43 To: tei-council@lists.tei-c.org [tei-council@lists.tei-c.org] Subject: Re: [tei-council] MsPart Comments

I really have no strong opinion on the issue myself, but I get the impression that ms-people might have … I wonder if that’s something we should feed back to the community and ask for opinions? Maybe we should post a request for comments on tei-ms-sig or even tei-l?!

Best Peter

Am 12.03.2015 um 15:18 schrieb Hugh Cayless :

...

The only place that might apply is dimensions. The hands are the same, the support material is the same. And, I don't see that distinction made in the GLs (though I might be missing it). Where else would you put information about the layout of the text, for example?

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 10:11 AM, James Cummings < james.cummings@it.ox.ac.uk

...

wrote:

...

But the counter argument is that physDesc is for the physicality of the object as it is, not as it once was.

James (From passport control queue so not as fully argued as it could be)

-- Dr James Cummings, Academic IT, University of Oxford

-----Original Message----- From: Hugh Cayless [philomousos@gmail.com] Received: Thursday, 12 Mar 2015, 14:03 To: TEI Council [tei-council@lists.tei-c.org] Subject: Re: [tei-council] MsPart Comments

My argument against multiple msDescs would be that, as an originally unitary object, my papyrus and inscription examples share any data related to their origins (e.g. msContents and physical description of the whole (original size, arrangement of columns, description of lettering, etc.). But you'd want to put information about things that happened to the pieces post-fragmentation in msPart/msFrag (including possibly physical description of the fragments).

I don't personally have any problem at all with a new element if that's the best solution. I do think msPart is where we have to focus though, whether it's to @type it or introduce a parallel like msFrag.

Opinions?

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Fabio Ciotti < fabio.ciotti@uniroma2.it> wrote:

2015-03-12 13:10 GMT+01:00 Hugh Cayless :

...

> Finally getting around to followup from the meeting after a > busier-than-usual weekend. It seemed like we were closing in on consensus that <msPart type="fragment"> would suffice and that there was not a need to create a new <msFrag> (vel sim.) element. Is that so, or would anyone like to re-open the discussion?

I have had some exchange of opinions with Italian manuscript catalogers and they have supported my opinion, so I am still convinced that for the description of generic dispersed text bearing objects a new element with a clear semantics would be the better way to go. But if the majority of the council agree on the Occam Razor compliant solution proposed by Hugh I raise my hands.

I’ve got an example here of a text very recently restored by means of > joining two papyrus fragments from two separate collections: http://papyri.info//ddbdp/sb;6;9255, so each fragment has its own inventory number (lines 1-9: Graz, Universität Ms. I 1933 Manchester;

lines

...

10-42: John Rylands Library Gr. 586) and this could be worked into an example very easily. Papyri.info doesn’t use msDesc in this way, unfortunately, due to the way the information comes into the system, but

I

...

could mark it up if that would be helpful.

> > I agree it probably makes no sense from a manuscript perspective, >> but >> > it makes total sense to a papyrologist or epigraphist, to whom these are also real physical objects. They’ve just been smashed. Take a look at http://insaph.kcl.ac.uk/iaph2007/iAph040004.html, for example, where the inscribed architrave is in several chunks. This is one text that is no longer in one piece.

Ok I see the point (and this could happen also for manuscripts strictu senso) but I still think that if the fragments are distinct objects (and possibly have different place of conservation) they should have distinct descriptions. The fact that the transcription is one (in either cases) does not change tha fact that they are n distinct documents or material artifacts.

f -- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived

-- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived -- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived

-- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived

-- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived

-- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived