Re: [tei-council] msDesc proposal

In that case why not just use msDesc? You have a single fragment, yes it is not the complete manuscript, but how is that different from a codex with the last 10 pages missing? You wouldn't recommend using msDesc/msPart/ in that situation would you? -James On 27/02/15 14:31, Hugh Cayless wrote:

Yes. It might well be that a single fragment is all you have. That's probably the most common case in fact.

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Stefanie Gehrke < stefanie.gehrke@biblissima-condorcet.fr> wrote:

...

I understood that it is not seen as mandatory to deliver a complete list of all dispersed parts of a manuscript

you could also just encode one part of a dispersed manuscript in <msDesc><msPart> ?

Stefanie

----- Mail original ----- De: "Martin Holmes" À: tei-council@lists.tei-c.org Envoyé: Vendredi 27 Février 2015 14:17:56 Objet: [tei-council] msDesc proposal

I seem to be unable to comment on the msDesc proposal here:

< https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bpBPughQp5sOoB13iTMHMeRd88Mjv12_eGZiQXY-...

...

so I'll raise a quick question here. I'm a bit confused about the second definition; where it says:

"In this case, the original manuscript is being encoded with msPart in order to provide information about the dispersed parts, or one distinct part is being encoded."

Does this mean that, conceivably, the "larger original manuscript" is being encoded with a _single_ msPart, or that it's being encoded with a _series_ of msPart elements, one for each component?

Cheers, Martin -- 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

-- Dr James Cummings, James.Cummings@it.ox.ac.uk Academic IT Services, University of Oxford