I agree, these are two different discussions.
Concerning your no 1): Where did you attach @type? It isn't allowed on
<msPart>. I thought that msPart/physDesc/objectDesc/@form is a proper place.
We use an ODD with this list of values for @form: "codex, fascicle,
leaf, scoll, other"
I would support your idea of having two descriptions. (As for example,
we would provide two different manifests using IIIF.)
But as I mentioned yesterday, this practice would result in one
description having msPart to describe the fragment, the other one using
msFrag. There would be two different @xml:ids, making it difficult to
understand that the two items are the same. Maybe/hopefully/only the
identical msIdentifier should make clear it's the same item. Which
leaves us with the question: If what we want to say is expressed by
msIdentifier, why then have different parent elements?
Am 07.03.2018 um 10:42 schrieb MLH:
> This is a very interesting discussion!
> I think there are two separate questions.
> (1) the distinction between a binding fragment or endleaf, and the composite manuscript consisting of several originally separate manuscripts bound together. Personally, I have been happy to use `<msPart>` for all these cases; one can use `@type` to provide a more precise indication of what the part is. For example, type="pastedown", type="endleaf", type="booklet" and so on. It might even be possible to agree on a controlled vocabulary...
> (2) The question of describing a manuscript which is known to have leaves elsewhere. I would argue against Pietro that one might actually want two descriptions here - one of the surviving MS. and one of the reconstructed MS. Would it also be possible to describe BNF et 45 using only `<msFrag>`?
Torsten Schassan - Digitale Editionen, Abteilung Handschriften und
Herzog August Bibliothek, D-38299 Wolfenbuettel, Tel. +49 5331 808-130