Can you try this link? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bpBPughQp5sOoB13iTMHMeRd88Mjv12_eGZiQXY-... Should be editable by now. Peter

Am 27.02.2015 um 14:41 schrieb Stefanie Gehrke :

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

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

If I'm understanding Lou's original objections then those would be separate msDescs because they have different physical properties and are catalogued separately. -James On 27/02/15 15:16, Stefanie Gehrke wrote:

depends on your objectives ? If you might identify one/several other part(s) later for example.

Stefanie

----- Mail original ----- De: "James Cummings" À: tei-council@lists.tei-c.org Envoyé: Vendredi 27 Février 2015 16:06:33 Objet: 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

I guess I'm thinking the kinds of things recorded in physDesc. As I said in the call, I think one of the central aspects is whether they are catalogued as a single object or multiple objects. If you had a plastic folder with a bunch of fragments of one-or-more documents that was catalogued as a single object, then it makes sense to give them a single msDesc potentially with msParts because they could be a composite. -James On 27/02/15 17:36, Stefanie Gehrke wrote:

what properties do you / @Lou mean by "physical properties" ?

----- Mail original ----- De: "James Cummings" À: tei-council@lists.tei-c.org Envoyé: Vendredi 27 Février 2015 17:19:02 Objet: Re: [tei-council] msDesc proposal

If I'm understanding Lou's original objections then those would be separate msDescs because they have different physical properties and are catalogued separately.

-James

On 27/02/15 15:16, Stefanie Gehrke wrote:

...

depends on your objectives ? If you might identify one/several other part(s) later for example.

Stefanie

----- Mail original ----- De: "James Cummings" À: tei-council@lists.tei-c.org Envoyé: Vendredi 27 Février 2015 16:06:33 Objet: 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