I agree with this also, now that I've thought
about it for a while. To avoid confusion, perhaps
it should be stated in the Guidelines that <repository>
is mandatory (it rhymes, too!). Suggested wording:
The following elements are available within <msIdentifier> to identify the holding institution:
These elements are all structurally equivalent to the standard TEI <name> element with an appropriate value for its type attribute; however the use of this ‘syntactic sugar’ enables the model for <msIdentifier> to be constrained rather more tightly than would otherwise be possible. Specifically, only one of each of the elements listed above may appear within the <msIdentifier> and they must, if present, appear in the order given. Moreover, if any of these appears, <repository> must appear too. 
/Patrik Nyman

Stutzmann Dominique  wrote:
The examples in the guidelines are clear : <repository> is here to be used in place of <institution>. The latter could be misleading and connects to an insitution (e.g. Stift Zwettl, which is a community of monks) not to the place where the manuscript is (e.g. Library of the Stift Zwettl).
  • institution contains the name of an organization such as a university or library, with which a manuscript is identified, generally its holding institution.
  • repository contains the name of a repository within which manuscripts are stored, possibly forming part of an institution.

    In following sentence the word "institution" is perhaps to be changed :
    "The following elements are used within <msIdentifier> to provide different ways of identifying the manuscript within its holding  i n s t i t u t i o n"
    As a (former) manuscript cataloger, I agree with
    Dominique Stutzmann

    Elena Pierazzo <[log in to unmask]> a écrit :
    Perhaps I'm not the right person to replay here as I'm more a MS transcriber and editor rather than a cataloger, but my feeling is that a repository is quite a fundamental element as the goal of the msIdentifier is to identify, indeed, a MS and that can be done by providing a widely recognized special name (msName) or by providing at least the repository if not the idno.
    But, of course, this is just my thought and catalogers will be of other advises.


    Syd Bauman ha scritto:
    [log in to unmask] type="cite">
    The trouble is that
     <repository> is given without the '?'  quantifier thus making it mandatory if any other element from  sequence is present. This is confirmed by the validator: as long  as there's a <repository>, anything goes. I don't think this  omission of the '?' quantifier in ROMA is intentional, though.        
    Ah, I missed that one. This indeed looks like an oversight in ROMA.      
      No, I don't think so. My recollection is that the manuscript experts  on that task force believed that a repository was required. Any of  the other MSsers care to comment?    (It would actually be an easier content model to maintain if  repository were also optional, because then what is now a reference  to a model class followed by four references to specific elements  could become one reference to a specialized model class.)    

    Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail