Am 17.03.2015 um 11:41 schrieb Hugh Cayless :

The general workaround for #661 is to provide an msName, right? Which I think is ok. In some cases the encoder might have to come up with a name, but I suspect that in most cases one will already exist, or there will be a formalism for generating one. Yes, that’s my reading as well.

Cheers Peter

I'm thinking that a @type on msDesc would help to quickly find out which approach is being used and avoid mixed use of msParts. Having two formalized terms would certainly help. But the guidelines should still encourage encoders to provide that more information about why/how the parts are or are not fragments -- like Peter suggested. Raff On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Peter Stadler wrote:

Stefanie just pointed out (via PM) that we haven’t settled on some sort of typification. There could be various ways: * @type on msDesc * @type on msPart (not provided yet) * @form on objectDesc * …?

My (pragmatic) proposal would be to let sleeping dogs lie and do not try to come up with some suggested values here. We should rather encourage people to provide some information (within history?) about what makes those msParts parts of something else and what is this something else (within msName?).

Just my tuppence Peter

-- 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