Print

Print


Dear Pietro,

it's funny because just yesterday I submitted an issue at GitHub dealing
exactly with this:

https://github.com/TEIC/TEI/issues/1747

Hugh has explained, that msFrag might not -as one could expect- be meant
to contain information about fragments but to serve as container for
virtual reconstruction. I think that both the wording of the Guidelines
as well as this understanding haven't been clear (at least to me) and
that I would definitly like to see this changed: Fragments of all kinds
should be described in msFrag and parts of a composed manuscript should
be described using msPart.

I can't think of any manuscript scholar who would consider a fragment
e.g. in the binding to have the same status as some part of a compound
manuscript.


Best, Torsten


Am 06.03.2018 um 07:30 schrieb Pietro Liuzzo:
> Dear all,
> 
> We have some cases of manuscripts where we would really like to be able to use msPart and msFrag at the same level inside a msDesc. 
> 
> For example we have a manuscript made of 3 distinct part plus one added to it later which came from another manuscript. 
> 
> We would like to have for the description of the manuscript which has the addition a msDesc like this
> 
> <msDesc>
> <msPart xml:id="p1">
> </msPart>
> <msPart xml:id="p1">
> </msPart>
> <msPart xml:id="p1">
> </msPart>
> <msFrag xml:id="f1">
> </msFrag>
> </msDesc>
> 
> 
> The content model of msDesc has an alternate between msFrag and msPart which does not allow this.  
> 
> Thank you very much!
> 
> Pietro
> 
> Pietro Maria Liuzzo
> cel (DE): +49 (0) 176 61 000 606
> Skype: pietro.liuzzo (Quingentole)
> https://uk.linkedin.com/in/pietroliuzzo
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Torsten Schassan - Digitale Editionen, Abteilung Handschriften und
Sondersammlungen
Herzog August Bibliothek, D-38299 Wolfenbuettel, Tel. +49 5331 808-130
Fax -165
Handschriftendatenbank <http://diglib.hab.de/?db=mss>