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...
I am also in favour of this. During the last call someone mentioned using a @type to specify how the element is being used, but I don't see this in the current proposal? I think it would be useful to formalize the distinction. On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Hugh Cayless <philomousos@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
I think that having two categories suffices here, but I see how the term "dispersed" does not cover the case you describe. But at the end of the day both scattered parts and fragmented parts are "not together". Maybe "divided" (or some other synonym) is a better term to encompass both a text that is dispersed and one that is in the same place but in fragments.
3) I'm not sure I understand the altIdentifier/msPart issue...
I think we have a similar situation in the Shelley Godwin Archive, where one former object is now divided into two physical objects, each with their own identifier. If I understand correctly, the proposal would allow to specify both identifiers as equals within msIdentifier, as well as allowing to omit repository information since the two fragments could be in separate repositories: <msIdentifier> <altIdentifier> <idno>id1</idno> </altIdentifier> <altIdentifier> <idno>id2</idno> </altIdentifier> </msIdentifier> If I got this right, then shouldn't we go as far as allowing to specify multiple repositories as well? We might need a wrapper element for that... <msIdentifier> <fragment> <repository>Library of Congress</repository> <idno>id1</idno> </fragment> <fragment> <repository>British Library</repository> <idno>id2</idno> </fragment> </msIdentifier> --
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
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:
I have objected against this at the last f2f meeting, and I still am at odd with this, since these extension could conflict with well established manuscript description traditions. F. ex. all the manuscript description applications I have seen have the concept of composite ms, while there is no notion of scattered or dispersed ms (virtually reconstructed). There is an ontological rationale in this, since from a codicological perspective ms are real physical objects (item in FRBR parlance), not abstract entities. I'd feel better with a new element with a clear semantic, but in the end I think that using <msPart> with a mandatory @type attribute can do the job.
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.
I do not have enough English sensitivity to give my opinion here, to me dispersed and scattered are very similar. Maybe divided as Raffaele suggests is better since it is more general term
2) In the proposed text rewording "only remaining fragment of a former codex", the word "codex" excludes papyri and inscriptions.
Yes but the scope of msDesc module is the description of manuscript like object, not of general text bearing object. There is pending proposal to have such an element form ontology SIG, and I am not sure squeezing msDesc is the right way to go. F
On Feb 23, 2015, at 12:04 , Fabio Ciotti <fabio.ciotti@UNIROMA2.IT> wrote:
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:
I have objected against this at the last f2f meeting, and I still am at odd with this, since these extension could conflict with well established manuscript description traditions. F. ex. all the manuscript description applications I have seen have the concept of composite ms, while there is no notion of scattered or dispersed ms (virtually reconstructed). There is an ontological rationale in this, since from a codicological perspective ms are real physical objects (item in FRBR parlance), not abstract entities.
I'd feel better with a new element with a clear semantic, but in the end I think that using <msPart> with a mandatory @type attribute can do the job.
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 <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.
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.
I do not have enough English sensitivity to give my opinion here, to me dispersed and scattered are very similar. Maybe divided as Raffaele suggests is better since it is more general term
To me dispersed and scattered are very similar too. Divided or fragmentary might be better.
2) In the proposed text rewording "only remaining fragment of a former codex", the word "codex" excludes papyri and inscriptions.
Yes but the scope of msDesc module is the description of manuscript like object, not of general text bearing object. There is pending proposal to have such an element form ontology SIG, and I am not sure squeezing msDesc is the right way to go.
I think that ship has sailed. In the absence of a good alternative, people have been using msDesc for things that aren’t codices for a few years now. I fear I’m one of them :-).
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
Finally getting around to followup from the meeting after a busier-than-usual weekend. It seemed like we were closing in on consensus 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’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.
On Feb 23, 2015, at 21:00 , Hugh Cayless <philomousos@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 23, 2015, at 12:04 , Fabio Ciotti <fabio.ciotti@UNIROMA2.IT> wrote:
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:
I have objected against this at the last f2f meeting, and I still am at odd with this, since these extension could conflict with well established manuscript description traditions. F. ex. all the manuscript description applications I have seen have the concept of composite ms, while there is no notion of scattered or dispersed ms (virtually reconstructed). There is an ontological rationale in this, since from a codicological perspective ms are real physical objects (item in FRBR parlance), not abstract entities.
I'd feel better with a new element with a clear semantic, but in the end I think that using <msPart> with a mandatory @type attribute can do the job.
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.
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.
I do not have enough English sensitivity to give my opinion here, to me dispersed and scattered are very similar. Maybe divided as Raffaele suggests is better since it is more general term
To me dispersed and scattered are very similar too. Divided or fragmentary might be better.
2) In the proposed text rewording "only remaining fragment of a former codex", the word "codex" excludes papyri and inscriptions.
Yes but the scope of msDesc module is the description of manuscript like object, not of general text bearing object. There is pending proposal to have such an element form ontology SIG, and I am not sure squeezing msDesc is the right way to go.
I think that ship has sailed. In the absence of a good alternative, people have been using msDesc for things that aren’t codices for a few years now. I fear I’m one of them :-).
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
2015-03-12 13:10 GMT+01:00 Hugh Cayless <philomousos@gmail.com>:
Finally getting around to followup from the meeting after a busier-than-usual weekend. It seemed like we were closing in on consensus 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
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 <fabio.ciotti@uniroma2.it> 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 <philomousos@gmail.com>: 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
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 <fabio.ciotti@uniroma2.it> 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 <philomousos@gmail.com>: 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
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 <james.cummings@it.ox.ac.uk
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 <fabio.ciotti@uniroma2.it> 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 <philomousos@gmail.com>: 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 -- 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
I really have no strong opinion on the issue myself, but I get the impression that ms-people might have … I wonder if that’s something we should feed back to the community and ask for opinions? Maybe we should post a request for comments on tei-ms-sig or even tei-l?! Best Peter
Am 12.03.2015 um 15:18 schrieb Hugh Cayless <philomousos@gmail.com>:
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 <james.cummings@it.ox.ac.uk
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 <fabio.ciotti@uniroma2.it> 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 <philomousos@gmail.com>: 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 -- 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
Both good ideas. James -- Dr James Cummings, Academic IT, University of Oxford -----Original Message----- From: Peter Stadler [stadler@edirom.de] Received: Thursday, 12 Mar 2015, 15:43 To: tei-council@lists.tei-c.org [tei-council@lists.tei-c.org] Subject: Re: [tei-council] MsPart Comments I really have no strong opinion on the issue myself, but I get the impression that ms-people might have … I wonder if that’s something we should feed back to the community and ask for opinions? Maybe we should post a request for comments on tei-ms-sig or even tei-l?! Best Peter
Am 12.03.2015 um 15:18 schrieb Hugh Cayless <philomousos@gmail.com>:
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 <james.cummings@it.ox.ac.uk
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 <fabio.ciotti@uniroma2.it> 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 <philomousos@gmail.com>: 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 -- 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
ok, could someone please review my short summary?!: Thanks Peter We lack a mechanism to describe physically dispersed objects as one logical object. Currently, the guidelines indicate the usage of <altIdentifier> for ‘scattered’ manuscripts [1] which seems not very convincing. A FR was made for redefining the semantics of <msPart> [2] to include the case off scattered manuscripts. (At present, <msPart> is only defined to "contain information about an originally distinct manuscript or part of a manuscript, now forming part of a composite manuscript“ [3]). Another proposed solution is to add a new dedicated element <msFrag> (or whatever name …) which would behave pretty much like <msPart> (in terms of content and context). [1] http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/MS.html#msid [2] https://sourceforge.net/p/tei/feature-requests/505/ [3] http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-msPart.html
Am 12.03.2015 um 16:55 schrieb James Cummings <james.cummings@it.ox.ac.uk>:
Both good ideas.
James
-- Dr James Cummings, Academic IT, University of Oxford
-----Original Message----- From: Peter Stadler [stadler@edirom.de] Received: Thursday, 12 Mar 2015, 15:43 To: tei-council@lists.tei-c.org [tei-council@lists.tei-c.org] Subject: Re: [tei-council] MsPart Comments
I really have no strong opinion on the issue myself, but I get the impression that ms-people might have … I wonder if that’s something we should feed back to the community and ask for opinions? Maybe we should post a request for comments on tei-ms-sig or even tei-l?!
Best Peter
Am 12.03.2015 um 15:18 schrieb Hugh Cayless <philomousos@gmail.com>:
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 <james.cummings@it.ox.ac.uk
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 <fabio.ciotti@uniroma2.it> 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 <philomousos@gmail.com>: 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 -- 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
HI Peter, I think I would insert "text bearing" here: We lack a mechanism to describe physically dispersed text-bearing objects as one logical object. I'm assuming that we are distinguishing text-bearing objects from the broader putative <object> object. "case off" should be "case of". Finally, I think a summary sentence would help: The choice is between 1) broadening the definition of <msPart> so that it can cover not only parts of a manuscript which were originally independent and later gathered together, but also parts of a manuscript which was originally whole but is now in fragments; and 2) creating a new element, <msFrag>, for the latter case. Hope this helps, Martin On 15-03-12 09:10 AM, Peter Stadler wrote:
ok, could someone please review my short summary?!: Thanks Peter
We lack a mechanism to describe physically dispersed objects as one logical object. Currently, the guidelines indicate the usage of <altIdentifier> for ‘scattered’ manuscripts [1] which seems not very convincing. A FR was made for redefining the semantics of <msPart> [2] to include the case off scattered manuscripts. (At present, <msPart> is only defined to "contain information about an originally distinct manuscript or part of a manuscript, now forming part of a composite manuscript“ [3]). Another proposed solution is to add a new dedicated element <msFrag> (or whatever name …) which would behave pretty much like <msPart> (in terms of content and context).
[1] http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/MS.html#msid [2] https://sourceforge.net/p/tei/feature-requests/505/ [3] http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-msPart.html
Am 12.03.2015 um 16:55 schrieb James Cummings <james.cummings@it.ox.ac.uk>:
Both good ideas.
James
-- Dr James Cummings, Academic IT, University of Oxford
-----Original Message----- From: Peter Stadler [stadler@edirom.de] Received: Thursday, 12 Mar 2015, 15:43 To: tei-council@lists.tei-c.org [tei-council@lists.tei-c.org] Subject: Re: [tei-council] MsPart Comments
I really have no strong opinion on the issue myself, but I get the impression that ms-people might have … I wonder if that’s something we should feed back to the community and ask for opinions? Maybe we should post a request for comments on tei-ms-sig or even tei-l?!
Best Peter
Am 12.03.2015 um 15:18 schrieb Hugh Cayless <philomousos@gmail.com>:
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 <james.cummings@it.ox.ac.uk
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 <fabio.ciotti@uniroma2.it> 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 <philomousos@gmail.com>: 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 -- 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
I might add that this is not for manuscript catalogers. It's for people like epigraphers and papyrologists. MS people seem to get hung up on this because they would never do it, but it's not *for* them. On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Martin Holmes <mholmes@uvic.ca> wrote:
HI Peter,
I think I would insert "text bearing" here:
We lack a mechanism to describe physically dispersed text-bearing objects as one logical object.
I'm assuming that we are distinguishing text-bearing objects from the broader putative <object> object.
"case off" should be "case of".
Finally, I think a summary sentence would help:
The choice is between 1) broadening the definition of <msPart> so that it can cover not only parts of a manuscript which were originally independent and later gathered together, but also parts of a manuscript which was originally whole but is now in fragments; and 2) creating a new element, <msFrag>, for the latter case.
Hope this helps, Martin
On 15-03-12 09:10 AM, Peter Stadler wrote:
ok, could someone please review my short summary?!: Thanks Peter
We lack a mechanism to describe physically dispersed objects as one logical object. Currently, the guidelines indicate the usage of <altIdentifier> for ‘scattered’ manuscripts [1] which seems not very convincing. A FR was made for redefining the semantics of <msPart> [2] to include the case off scattered manuscripts. (At present, <msPart> is only defined to "contain information about an originally distinct manuscript or part of a manuscript, now forming part of a composite manuscript“ [3]). Another proposed solution is to add a new dedicated element <msFrag> (or whatever name …) which would behave pretty much like <msPart> (in terms of content and context).
[1] http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/MS.html#msid [2] https://sourceforge.net/p/tei/feature-requests/505/ [3] http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-msPart.html
Am 12.03.2015 um 16:55 schrieb James Cummings <
james.cummings@it.ox.ac.uk>:
Both good ideas.
James
-- Dr James Cummings, Academic IT, University of Oxford
-----Original Message----- From: Peter Stadler [stadler@edirom.de] Received: Thursday, 12 Mar 2015, 15:43 To: tei-council@lists.tei-c.org [tei-council@lists.tei-c.org] Subject: Re: [tei-council] MsPart Comments
I really have no strong opinion on the issue myself, but I get the impression that ms-people might have … I wonder if that’s something we should feed back to the community and ask for opinions? Maybe we should post a request for comments on tei-ms-sig or even tei-l?!
Best Peter
Am 12.03.2015 um 15:18 schrieb Hugh Cayless <philomousos@gmail.com>:
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 < james.cummings@it.ox.ac.uk
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 < fabio.ciotti@uniroma2.it> wrote:
2015-03-12 13:10 GMT+01:00 Hugh Cayless <philomousos@gmail.com>:
> Finally getting around to followup from the meeting after a > busier-than-usual weekend. It seemed like we were closing in on consensus 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 -- 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
-- 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
I suggest to add to "physically dispersed text-bearing objects" "which formerly were parts of a single physical object" -- Stefanie ----- Mail original ----- De: "Hugh Cayless" <philomousos@gmail.com> À: "TEI Council" <tei-council@lists.tei-c.org> Envoyé: Jeudi 12 Mars 2015 18:38:14 Objet: Re: [tei-council] MsPart Comments I might add that this is not for manuscript catalogers. It's for people like epigraphers and papyrologists. MS people seem to get hung up on this because they would never do it, but it's not *for* them.
Agree to make a public call for comments
I might add that this is not for manuscript catalogers. It's for people like epigraphers and papyrologists. MS people seem to get hung up on this because they would never do it, but it's not *for* them.
Ok but at this point we could consider a 3d option. Leaving msDesc alone (manuscripts are manuscripts) and adding a textBearngObj element. I know it will make things more complex but in survey we should give more rational options as possible. f
Thanks all for your input! I just sent the message and I think we can feed the missing bits into the discussion if needed. Best Peter
Am 12.03.2015 um 18:38 schrieb Hugh Cayless <philomousos@gmail.com>:
I might add that this is not for manuscript catalogers. It's for people like epigraphers and papyrologists. MS people seem to get hung up on this because they would never do it, but it's not *for* them.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Martin Holmes <mholmes@uvic.ca> wrote:
HI Peter,
I think I would insert "text bearing" here:
We lack a mechanism to describe physically dispersed text-bearing objects as one logical object.
I'm assuming that we are distinguishing text-bearing objects from the broader putative <object> object.
"case off" should be "case of".
Finally, I think a summary sentence would help:
The choice is between 1) broadening the definition of <msPart> so that it can cover not only parts of a manuscript which were originally independent and later gathered together, but also parts of a manuscript which was originally whole but is now in fragments; and 2) creating a new element, <msFrag>, for the latter case.
Hope this helps, Martin
On 15-03-12 09:10 AM, Peter Stadler wrote:
ok, could someone please review my short summary?!: Thanks Peter
We lack a mechanism to describe physically dispersed objects as one logical object. Currently, the guidelines indicate the usage of <altIdentifier> for ‘scattered’ manuscripts [1] which seems not very convincing. A FR was made for redefining the semantics of <msPart> [2] to include the case off scattered manuscripts. (At present, <msPart> is only defined to "contain information about an originally distinct manuscript or part of a manuscript, now forming part of a composite manuscript“ [3]). Another proposed solution is to add a new dedicated element <msFrag> (or whatever name …) which would behave pretty much like <msPart> (in terms of content and context).
[1] http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/MS.html#msid [2] https://sourceforge.net/p/tei/feature-requests/505/ [3] http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-msPart.html
Am 12.03.2015 um 16:55 schrieb James Cummings <
james.cummings@it.ox.ac.uk>:
Both good ideas.
James
-- Dr James Cummings, Academic IT, University of Oxford
-----Original Message----- From: Peter Stadler [stadler@edirom.de] Received: Thursday, 12 Mar 2015, 15:43 To: tei-council@lists.tei-c.org [tei-council@lists.tei-c.org] Subject: Re: [tei-council] MsPart Comments
I really have no strong opinion on the issue myself, but I get the impression that ms-people might have … I wonder if that’s something we should feed back to the community and ask for opinions? Maybe we should post a request for comments on tei-ms-sig or even tei-l?!
Best Peter
Am 12.03.2015 um 15:18 schrieb Hugh Cayless <philomousos@gmail.com>:
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 < james.cummings@it.ox.ac.uk
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 < fabio.ciotti@uniroma2.it> wrote:
2015-03-12 13:10 GMT+01:00 Hugh Cayless <philomousos@gmail.com>: > >> Finally getting around to followup from the meeting after a >> > busier-than-usual weekend. It seemed like we were closing in on > consensus > 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 -- 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
-- 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
well done peter. f 2015-03-13 10:35 GMT+01:00 Peter Stadler <stadler@edirom.de>:
Thanks all for your input! I just sent the message and I think we can feed the missing bits into the discussion if needed.
Best Peter
Am 12.03.2015 um 18:38 schrieb Hugh Cayless <philomousos@gmail.com>:
I might add that this is not for manuscript catalogers. It's for people like epigraphers and papyrologists. MS people seem to get hung up on this because they would never do it, but it's not *for* them.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Martin Holmes <mholmes@uvic.ca> wrote:
HI Peter,
I think I would insert "text bearing" here:
We lack a mechanism to describe physically dispersed text-bearing objects as one logical object.
I'm assuming that we are distinguishing text-bearing objects from the broader putative <object> object.
"case off" should be "case of".
Finally, I think a summary sentence would help:
The choice is between 1) broadening the definition of <msPart> so that it can cover not only parts of a manuscript which were originally independent and later gathered together, but also parts of a manuscript which was originally whole but is now in fragments; and 2) creating a new element, <msFrag>, for the latter case.
Hope this helps, Martin
On 15-03-12 09:10 AM, Peter Stadler wrote:
ok, could someone please review my short summary?!: Thanks Peter
We lack a mechanism to describe physically dispersed objects as one logical object. Currently, the guidelines indicate the usage of <altIdentifier> for ‘scattered’ manuscripts [1] which seems not very convincing. A FR was made for redefining the semantics of <msPart> [2] to include the case off scattered manuscripts. (At present, <msPart> is only defined to "contain information about an originally distinct manuscript or part of a manuscript, now forming part of a composite manuscript“ [3]). Another proposed solution is to add a new dedicated element <msFrag> (or whatever name …) which would behave pretty much like <msPart> (in terms of content and context).
[1] http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/MS.html#msid [2] https://sourceforge.net/p/tei/feature-requests/505/ [3] http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-msPart.html
Am 12.03.2015 um 16:55 schrieb James Cummings <
james.cummings@it.ox.ac.uk>:
Both good ideas.
James
-- Dr James Cummings, Academic IT, University of Oxford
-----Original Message----- From: Peter Stadler [stadler@edirom.de] Received: Thursday, 12 Mar 2015, 15:43 To: tei-council@lists.tei-c.org [tei-council@lists.tei-c.org] Subject: Re: [tei-council] MsPart Comments
I really have no strong opinion on the issue myself, but I get the impression that ms-people might have … I wonder if that’s something we should feed back to the community and ask for opinions? Maybe we should post a request for comments on tei-ms-sig or even tei-l?!
Best Peter
Am 12.03.2015 um 15:18 schrieb Hugh Cayless <philomousos@gmail.com>:
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 < james.cummings@it.ox.ac.uk
> 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 < > fabio.ciotti@uniroma2.it> > wrote: > > 2015-03-12 13:10 GMT+01:00 Hugh Cayless <philomousos@gmail.com>: >> >>> Finally getting around to followup from the meeting after a >>> >> busier-than-usual weekend. It seemed like we were closing in on >> consensus >> 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 > -- > 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
-- 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
-- Fabio Ciotti Dipartimento Studi Umanistici, Università di Roma Tor Vergata Presidente Associazione Informatica Umanistica Cultura Digitale
participants (7)
-
Fabio Ciotti -
Hugh Cayless -
James Cummings -
Martin Holmes -
Peter Stadler -
Raffaele Viglianti -
Stefanie Gehrke