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 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 Finally getting around to followup from the meeting after a
busier-than-usual weekend. It seemed like we were closing in on consensus 2015-03-12 13:10 GMT+01:00 Hugh Cayless 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