Hi Matthew,

I would probably have recorded this in multiple <layout> elements 
...something like:

      <layout writtenLines="35">
        <locus from="5r" to="10v">fol. 5r to 10v</locus>
        <dimensions type="leaf">
        <note>This layout is fairly boring</note>
      <layout writtenLines="5">
        <locus from="11r" to="123v">fol. 11r to 123v</locus>
        <dimensions type="leaf">
        <note>Wow! The rest of this ms has a weird layout.</note>

Though it does beg the question, why are multiple layouts 
possible and not multiple supports? If there was the possibility 
of multiple supports I would have done the same as above but with 


On 09/03/17 19:17, Syd Bauman wrote:
> I think you may end up wanting <note> and <locus> inside
> <dimensions>, but certainly poke at the use of the @precision,
> @scope, @atLeast, @atMost, @min, @max, and @confidence attributes of
> <dimensions> first. My bet is that describing variability with @min,
> @max, and perhaps @confidence is likely to be sufficient; but that
> because this isn't really what @scope was designed for, it may be
> difficult (or abusive) to use it to express what portion of the
> manuscript a particular <dimensions> applies to.
>> How would people go about encoding the dimensions of a manuscript
>> or other object where the dimensions (either leaf or written space)
>> vary between different sections of the manuscript? And/or, where a
>> significant fact about those dimensions should be recorded (e.g.
>> that the leaves have been sigificantly cropped by a binder). I
>> should say that we are using <dimensions> not <measure> to record
>> these dimensions. The obvious solution seems to be to allow <locus>
>> and <note> inside <dimensions>, and I would like to create a ticket
>> for this, but I'd like to see if people have any other suggestions
>> before I do this!

Dr James Cummings, [log in to unmask]
Academic IT Services, University of Oxford