I am also in favour of this. During the last call someone mentioned using a
@type to specify how the element is being used, but I don't see this in the
current proposal? I think it would be useful to formalize the distinction.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Hugh Cayless
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.
I think that having two categories suffices here, but I see how the term "dispersed" does not cover the case you describe. But at the end of the day both scattered parts and fragmented parts are "not together". Maybe "divided" (or some other synonym) is a better term to encompass both a text that is dispersed and one that is in the same place but in fragments.
3) I'm not sure I understand the altIdentifier/msPart issue...
I think we have a similar situation in the Shelley Godwin Archive, where one former object is now divided into two physical objects, each with their own identifier. If I understand correctly, the proposal would allow to specify both identifiers as equals within msIdentifier, as well as allowing to omit repository information since the two fragments could be in separate repositories: <msIdentifier> <altIdentifier> <idno>id1</idno> </altIdentifier> <altIdentifier> <idno>id2</idno> </altIdentifier> </msIdentifier> If I got this right, then shouldn't we go as far as allowing to specify multiple repositories as well? We might need a wrapper element for that... <msIdentifier> <fragment> <repository>Library of Congress</repository> <idno>id1</idno> </fragment> <fragment> <repository>British Library</repository> <idno>id2</idno> </fragment> </msIdentifier> --
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