Dear Torsten,

my <history> would look very similar to your <condition>, I think.* Indeed the description can be a mixture of both of these aspects. Maybe it would be better to seperate the physical aspect ("Leaves are cut out") from the more "historical" aspect ("They are now part of Ms XY").  Anyway, I support your advice to use altIdentifier in the case of fragments. @form just seems to be usable for some kind of classifying, but I am not sure if it can or should be used for a more complex physical or historical description.



Am 27.05.2015 09:54, schrieb Torsten Schaßan:

Dear all,

@Philipp: I wonder how your encoding using <history> would look like? <history> is parent to (summary,) origin, provenance, and acquisition. Thus it can contain either one of these elements or <p>s.

I would prefer to make the provenance explicit using msPart/altIdentifier[@type='former'] on MS B, additionally explaining with words what was going on in history/provenance.
Describing the situation in msDesc of MS a is a bit harder as (right now) we don't have elelements to tell what is *not* there anymore. To describe the fact that MS a is a fragment, I would vote for physDesc/condition. The guidelines examples do the same thing:

  <p>There are lacunae in three places in this manuscript. After 14v two leaves has been cut out and narrow strips leaves remains in the spine. After 68v one gathering is missing and after 101v at least one gathering of 8 leaves has been lost. </p>

(We had a nice discussion on a workshop on fragments and how to catalogue them concerning exctly this fact: We tend to call something a fragment when we have some strips, maybe a leaf, maximum a few quires. But the manuscript, those "fragments" have been taken from is left fragmentary as well, only that we we still call it a codex. If there were a tradition of relating these two --codex and fragment--, objectDesc/@form would be another place to give some information about the status of the two.


Torsten Schassan
Digitale Editionen
Abteilung Handschriften und Sondersammlungen
Herzog August Bibliothek, Postfach 1364, D-38299 Wolfenbuettel
Tel.: +49-5331-808-130 (Fax -165), schassan {at}


Philipp Vanscheidt <[log in to unmask]> , 26.05.2015 17:14:

Dear colleagues,

I would use <provenance> and <history>, too. <Filiation> is related to the same text in different manuscripts. For manuscript B I would prefer <provenance>, for manuscript A <history>. You may argue that provenance - or at least the German "Provenienz" - is more about ownership but the TEI definition is broader: "information concerning a single identifiable episode during the history of a manuscript or manuscript part, after its creation but before its acquisition".

Although this definition would also fit the case of manuscript A somehow, I would not use it here. For me, "provenance" is related to "where something comes from" not to "where something goes to". But that seems not to be part of the definition in the guidelines. Because there is no symmetrical antonym for <provenance>, I would choose <history> as the more general element.



Am 26.05.2015 16:53, schrieb Pierazzo, Elena:

I'd use provenance/history. Filiation is to describe connection with the Ms form a tradition point of view, i.e. I'd use it to say if A derives from B or vice versa.

Elena Pierazzo
Visiting Senior Research Fellow
King's College London
Department of Digital Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane

Professor of Italian Studies and Digital Humanities
Bureau F307
Université Grenoble Alpes - GERCI
BP 25 38040 Grenoble Cedex 9
Tel. +33 4 76828032

On 26 May 2015, at 16:29, Michelson, David Allen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

 Dear Colleagues,
I sent this to the main TEI list but got no answer, so trying here. I would love to know what usages are already in place in existing projects.
These questions are for those who work with the msDesc module.
I have a situation in which there are two manuscripts which share folia. Manuscript A was written first and at some point eight folia were removed or fell out of the manuscript. These eight folia were later inserted and bound into the front of Manuscript B. For my purposes, I will describe these eight itinerant folia as a separate msPart in my description of MS B (following a rule internal to my project which is to catalogue everything according to its current location). But I would like to also include a mention of their relationship to MS A (and I would like to include this mention in my descriptions of both MS A and MS B). 
The phrases I want to include are
In MS A's description: "A lacuna of eight leaves between foll. 28 and 29 is filled exactly by MS B, foll. 1-8, leaves which originally belonged to this manuscript."

In MS B's description: "These eight leaves belong to MS A where they exactly fill the lacuna between MS A, foll. 28 and 29."
What element(s) should I use? The two possibilities seem to be Filiation or History/Provenance? And would I use the same elements in my descriptions of both A and B or different elements.
On the one hand, I read the definition of the filiation element to be very close to what I am trying to do. On the other hand, my note is not really about the msContents but about the physDesc of the manuscript, thus provenance might be a better fit.
Thank you,
Dave Michelson