23 Feb
2015
23 Feb
'15
5:18 a.m.
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...