My response to this same problem (but with inscriptions/collections) has
been to use the msName option within msIdentifier: so the
inscription/collection/compound manuscript usually has a verbal
designator, perhaps informal, even if it doesn't have a shelfmark,
repository, or any other kind of formal idno.
Would this relieve your problem, or not?
On 2015-03-16 11:24, Peter Stadler wrote:
> Dear all,
> present votes on the dispersed-fragments-issue seem to indicate to broaden the semantics of <msPart> to allow for the capturing of fragments.
> I personally would welcome this change but it will introduce another issue for me: I’m working with 19th century letters and for a ‚standard’ letter I only give information about the country, settlement, repository and idno in msIdentifier. When we have fragments, though, this information would be moved to the msParts, leaving an empty msIdentifier. I wonder if it does make sense to make msIdentifier optional? Maybe as an alternative to msPart+ ?
> My argument would be, that the combination of the msParts *is* the msDesc, rather than enforcing a singular msIdentifier as some sort of glue.
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]