Re: [tei-council] MsPart Comments

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 wrote:

...

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 : 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