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
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
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]