[tei-council] Witness proposal

[Dot Porter]

I agree with James here - why not link multiple msDescriptions to witnesses?

Gautier (in Lou's translation) says:

"The second solution would be to place a list containing a description
of each witness used by the critical edition in the header of the
file. This solution is quite feasible, and even advisable in the case
of an edition of one text, such as a literary edition, for example.
But where the critical edition is a collection of texts, for example a
collection of charters, exempla or even "farces", it would be
preferable to use a precise description of each witness in each text."

This could be multiple msDescriptions in the header.

"Moreover, the witness list will include not only manuscripts
(archives, or books) but also printed material: the description of
witnesses therefore involves more than msdescriptions."

List both multiple <bibl>s (for printed material) and multiple
<msDescription>s (for manuscript/archives) in the sourceDesc?

Dot

On 3/22/07, James Cummings
<James.Cummings at computing-services.oxford.ac.uk> wrote:
> Lou Burnard wrote:
> > Fortunately, he's a persevering kind of chap, and I have now recovered
> > the draft and placed it somewhere you can see it, viz:
> >
> > http://www.tei-c.org/Drafts/witnessPart/proposal-witness.xml
> >
> > It's in French, so I will summarize briefly the proposal here (I will
> > also translate the document fully if so requested)
>
> While I'm able to get the general sense from the document, I'm sure a
> translation would help me as well, so I'd second Dot's request.
>
> > * create a new class called model.witnessPart. which is a subclass of
> > model.phrasel; use this class in the content model of <witness>
> > * add to this class a number of elements currently specific to
> > msDescription, specifically:
> >   origDate, material, physDesc, seal, dimensions,
> > filiation,msIdentifier, msContents, rubric;
>
> Why can't the witness instead link to an msDescription?
>
> > * re-introduce the "sigil" attribute as a new <sigil> element
>
> If I'm understanding the French, the complaint is that the suggested use of
> xml:id is to constricting since people may wish to use existing sigla well-known
> in the community, but that <ident> simultaneously is too vague and generic but
> also won't allow some useful elements.  Am I understanding that correctly?  I
> still think I'd favour a linking mechanism from witness to msIdentifier if
> someone needs a more detailed identification.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding the
> proposal though.
>
>
> > * add a "class" attribute to <witness>
>
> I was unable to get up the "Appendix A Liste des éléments de la classe
> witnessPart", but if I'm understanding the prose description correctly, this
> attribute would be used to indicate a taxonomy used to classify that witness.
> Which again seems like something which should be off in msDescription
>
> I'm probably just mistranslating things though, so I look forward to Lou's
> translation which I know is in hand.
>
> -James
>
> --
> Dr James Cummings, Oxford Text Archive, University of Oxford
> James dot Cummings at oucs dot ox dot ac dot uk
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>


-- 
***************************************
Dot Porter, University of Kentucky
#####
Program Coordinator
Collaboratory for Research in Computing for Humanities
dporter at uky.edu          859-257-9549
#####
Editorial Assistant, REVEAL Project
Center for Visualization and Virtual Environments
porter at vis.uky.edu
***************************************