I share here in the public list the opinion I have already expresed in
the Coucil discussion
I object against the extension of the use of <msPart>, since these
extension could conflict with well established manuscript description
traditions. F. ex. all the manuscript description applications I have
seen (and all the manuscript cataloguers I have aske to) 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.
The scope of msDesc module is the description of manuscript like
object, not of general text bearing object. Since the proposal to add
a more general element for this kind of objects is still not ready, I
think that to avoid confusion and problems with well established
disciplinary traditions adding an <msFrag> element would be a more
clean and correct solution. That said this will not be my holy war
2015-03-13 13:44 GMT+01:00 Peter Stokes <[log in to unmask]>:
> Dear all,
> I’d echo Arianna's desire for a richer conceptual model here as fragments can get very complex indeed. We weren’t working with TEI we did have to think about this quite a lot for DigiPal, and a PhD student of mine, Matilda Watson, has taken our model a lot further as she needs to deal with some pretty messy cases (I’m making this up but something like ’these two fragments, one now bound with other fragments in Stockholm and one now similarly bound but in Oslo, were once bound in with these other folios which are now in Copenhagen and which all used to have a single shelfmark, but the two fragments were also once used to bind different sixteenth-century tax accounts, and were probably (but perhaps not) originally part of the same folio so probably had the same locus then but don’t anymore’). I’m not sure that the TEI really wants to get into all that, but some simpler use-cases are described at https://www.digipal.eu/help/digipal-data-model/ which may be helpful.
> Having said that, I agree that it probably doesn’t take many entities to capture a lot of this. My sense is that you’d need a generic ‘part’ with some sort of typology, and then different groupings of those parts (presumably also typed, with scope for attaching dates, places etc.) would be sufficient. This may well be possible already, but if so then it would be helpful to make this model more explicit somewhere. As a first step I’d be happy to meet with Gabby and see what a TEI encoding of DigiPal material and also Matilda’s fragments might look like.
> All the best,
> On 13 Mar 2015, at 11:15, Gabriel Bodard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> I think I'm also in favour of extending the definition of `<msPart>` (which has been recommended on this list so many times in the past that I bet it's what many people do already). I don't see enough of a conceptual difference between a text-bearing object that was once/is now in several parts, whether it is physically brought together or just digitally reconstituted by the TEI edition (say), whether it was once certainly a single physically object or is merely speculated by an editor to have been a conceptually single object/text/etc.
>> Sure we can suggest a taxonomy of such "broken manuscript" types, and it would be good to be able to record that, as Arianna suggests, but within that I don't think we'd need to handle such "parts" very differently. (I certainly have been using `<msPart>` to capture some details of both fragments, sections, and grouped/related inscriptions without any difficulty.)
>> On 2015-03-13 10:08, Arianna Ciula wrote:
>>> Dear Peter and all,
>>> This is indeed one of those cases when one would really want a
>>> conceptual model behind the TEI hierarchy of elements (but also clear
>>> principles: when do we create a new element and when instead we
>>> recommend using attributes to specify existing elements?)
>>> Indeed, it seems to me that a part of a manuscript would be a superclass
>>> of a fragment of a manuscript in the proposed msFrag sense as well as a
>>> superclass of the current msPart.
>>> I would be in favour of enlarging the semantics of <msPart> but also of
>>> suggesting the use of some mechanisms (@ana?) to explain what kind of
>>> part we are talking about when it is indeed clear or an interpretation
>>> is available.
>>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Peter Stadler <[log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>> the TEI Council is seeking advice for the following issue:
>>> We are lacking a mechanism to describe physically dispersed
>>> text-bearing objects (which formerly were parts of a single physical
>>> object) as one logical object.
>>> Currently, the guidelines indicate the usage of <altIdentifier> for
>>> ‘scattered’ manuscripts  which seems not very convincing. A
>>> feature request was made for redefining the semantics of <msPart>
>>>  to include the case of 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“ ).
>>> 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).
>>> So, 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.
>>> Any comments appreciated!
>>> Many thanks and
>>> all the best
>>>  http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/MS.html#msid
>>>  https://sourceforge.net/p/tei/feature-requests/505/
>>>  http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-msPart.html
>> Dr Gabriel BODARD
>> Researcher in Digital Epigraphy
>> Digital Humanities
>> King's College London
>> Boris Karloff Building
>> 26-29 Drury Lane
>> London WC2B 5RL
>> T: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
>> E: [log in to unmask]
Dipartimento Studi Umanistici, Università di Roma Tor Vergata
Presidente Associazione Informatica Umanistica Cultura Digitale