[log in to unmask]" type="cite">Dear TEI list,As I'm reading about correspDesc (see http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/HD.html#HD44CD ), the focus seems to be on a concise compilation of metadata to describe the initiator, recipient and dates associated with an act of correspondence. It does not seem to be about describing the physical marks on a letter, such as the shapes and positions of postal marks or the presence and appearance of wax seals. Within correspDesc, it seems to me the markup would indicate simply the metadata gleaned from our reading of the surface marks, not a description of the surface marks themselves.
Thus, if I were to answer my own question, I'd say, I think I ought to leave all that physical stuff I posted in my previous message right where it is in <sourceDesc>, and sum up information about the letter in the correspDesc. Is that the right answer?
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Elisa Beshero-Bondar <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear Michael and list,Here's how we're handling postmarks and wax seals and such for 19th-century letters in the Digital Mitford project. They're not always clear or consistent, so it's difficult to deal with them in a granular way, as you indicate!
As a followup question: Would the wisdom of the list suggest I should move this information into the profileDesc, to sit in correspDesc? We could move all this from <sourcDesc> to <profileDesc> with a batch transformation.
Anyway, this will show you our thinking on how to handle the complexities of postmarks and seals--and I'd love some feedback!
<respository ref="#Rylands">The John Rylands University Library</repository>
<collection><!--Letter is a part of which collection or volume of letters?-->
Mitford-Talfourd Correspondence: Letters from Mary Russell Mitford to Thomas Noon Talfourd: vol. 665</collection>
<idno><!--Enter MS number or shelfmark here→-> qB/TU/MIT</idno>
<head>Letter from Mary Russell Mitford to T.N. Talfourd, <date when="1822-08-13">1822 August 13</date>.<note resp="#lmw"><persName ref="#MRM">MRM</persName> dates this letter <date>August 13</date> and it is posted on <date>the 14th</date>.</note><!--ebb: Put an editorial note here when we need to explain how we arrived at this date. We could reference Coles, L'Estrange, or others here, too, if it helps to authenticate date, recipient, etc.--></head>
<p><material>Paper</material> with watermark in form of <watermark>anchor</watermark> visible on second sheet.</p>
<p>How many distinct sheets of paper do you count in this letter (as opposed to the number of pages--usually 4--marked on the fronts and backs and over folds)? Indicate number of sheets, and size of sheets, whether this is a fragment, and if so what appears to be missing. Two sheets of quarto-post folded in thirds twice. OR octavo-post OR 16-mo post, folded once or twice, etc. (If you can’t tell what size paper this is b/c you’re working with a photo or just don’t know, you can simply say, one large sheet, with a half-size smaller sheet inside, etc.)
Describe any watermarks here, and on what sheets they appear.
Envelope present, or only an address leaf?
[EXAMPLE]: Folded in thirds twice: one sheet of quarto-post containing pages 1, 2, 5 and 6, and one sheet of half quarto post containing pages 3 and 4. Watermark in form of <watermark>unicorn</watermark> visible on page three </p>
<p>Describe stamps or postal marks here.
It'll help to look at our slides on how to identify the different stamps: http://digitalmitford.wordpress.com/2014/05/27/the-digital-mitfords-guide-to-19th-century-british-postmarks-and-how-to-code-them-in-tei/
Use the <lb/> element to indicate what’s above and below if needed. Envelope bearing large stamped date inside circle reading <date when="1818-04-20"><stamp>April 20<lb/>1818</stamp></date> above right of address. Address leaf bearing sepia-inked stamp reading <stamp><time>7 o'Clock</time><lb/><date>29 * JU</date> <lb/><date>1820</date> N. <unclear><gap quantity="1" unit="chars" reason="illegible"/></unclear></stamp> at top left-hand edge upside down in relation to the writing of the address.</p>
<condition><p>Comment on the condition: is the letter damaged, signs of mold? Example: A portion of page 3 has been torn away under the seal.</p></condition>
<p>Is there a seal on this letter? Describe it. Red oval-shaped wax seal with diagonal line, and at the bottom lettering <q>anders</q>. Or indicate here if the seal is missing.</p>
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Michael Hawkins <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I'm currently in the middle of updating a bunch of transcripts of manuscript correspondence to take advantage of correspDesc. However, I'm having problems figuring out how to deal with postmarks. Does anyone on the list have any suggestions on how they could be encoded? Unfortunately, our postmarks aren't currently encoded with a great deal of granularity. It isn't feasible (right now) to tease out the separate bits of information on places, dates, etc so that might limit the options a bit.
Thanks in advance,