Print

Print


Dear Lou (cc TEI-L),

Thank you for the follow-up. I agree that <date> would be ambiguous. In the Repertorium project we've had a special element for the liturgical date of an msItem since our P3 days in the mid-1990s (we called it <churchCal>). It isn't necessarily part of a textual title that appears in the manuscript entry itself, although that is common. Functionally I think of it as metadata, rather than textual data, and therefore part of the description, rather than the transcription.

Sincerely,

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Lou Burnard [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 1:00 PM
To: Birnbaum, David J
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: reference dates in <msItemStruct>

My guess is that we felt that "date" was rather an ambiguous concept.

In this case, <docDate> would clearly be wrong, since it is defined as holding the date something visibly claims to have been written on.

If I understand the use case correctly, it sounds like a kind of title
-- this is the item relating to this date (sermon for the 3rd sunday after Pentecost, kind of thing). So I'd tag it as a <date> inside a <title>. But James's suggestion works too.


  On 16/08/11 17:51, Birnbaum, David J wrote:
> Dear James (cc TEI-L),
>
> Thank you for the quick response. Whatever were we thinking when we left that out?! Sigh ...
>
> Cheers,
>
> David
>
>
>
> On Aug 16, 2011, at 11:53 AM, "James Cummings"<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>
>> On 16/08/11 15:10, Birnbaum, David J wrote:
>>> Dear TEI-L,
>>>
>>> I'm preparing a P5 manuscript description of a menologion, a 
>>> medieval collection of readings associated with specific calendar 
>>> dates (month and day of the month). When I look at
>>> the contents permitted in<msItemStruct>   (as well as<msItem>),
>>> I don't see<date>. What is the P5-approved way to indicate that a 
>>> particular reading is associated with a particular date of the year?
>>
>> I would probably embed them in a<note>  with a @type attribute 
>> indicating the special nature of this note, a formulaic phrasing and 
>> an child<date>  element. I'm not saying that is at all a good 
>> solution, but probably what I would do because using<docDate>, which 
>> is allowed, seems somehow more abusive or non-standard.
>> I've not got a good solution.
>>
>> -James
>>
>> --
>> Dr James Cummings, InfoDev,
>> Computing Services, University of Oxford