[tei-council] Chapter 10 - Manuscript Description

[Lou's Laptop]

Brett Zamir wrote:
> Thanks for the replies on the other chapters...here's chapter 10...*
>
> 10.3.3 Watermarks and Stamps*
>
> I made a change in the attached patch file in order to make it clear 
> that <support> was a newly introduced element.
>

I'm assuming you mean that the <support> element hasn't been discussed 
at this point: this does happen, and our practice is usually to provide 
a reference forward to explain it; this I have now done.

> *10.4 The Manuscript Identifier*
>
> For...
>
> "...additional or more precise information on the physical location of 
> the manuscript can be given within the <gi>adminInfo</gi> element, 
> discussed in section <ptr target="#msadad"/> below." 
>
> and
>
> "It might, however, be preferable to include such information within 
> the <gi>adminInfo</gi> element discussed in section <ptr 
> target="#msadad"/> below."
>
> Section 10.7.5.1 which these refer to, does not specifically mention 
> the <adminInfo> element. (I think it ought to be added there too, even 
> if you only correct these references.)
>
This section is actually wrong (or at least disagrees with the content 
model)  so thanks for picking that up. I have corrected it to match the 
content model.


> *10.6.3 Rubrics, Incipts, Explicits, and Other Quotations from the Text*
>
> "It is customary in a manuscript description to record the opening and 
> closing words of a text as well as any headings or colophons it might 
> have, and the specialised elements <gi>rubric</gi>, <gi>incipit</gi>, 
> <gi>explicit</gi>, <gi>finalRubric</gi>, and <gi>colophon</gi> are 
> available within <gi>msItem</gi> for doing so, *along with the more 
> general <gi>quote</gi>*, for recording other bits of the text not 
> covered by these elements."
>
> Should the bolded phrase refer instead to <q> which is even more 
> general than <quote> (and which isn't necessarily external, as my 
> understanding of the other items is that they also are not external)?

<quote> is more general than <incipit> etc. I am not sure what you mean 
by "external"  here, but the point is that all of these elements are 
used to "quote" bits from other parts of the ms.
primarily. <q> is not allowed by the current content model (after some 
degree of blood letting on the council list)

> *10.6.6 Languages and Writing Systems*
>
> Not having been familiar with the 3-letter codes, I checked up and 
> found the ISO 639.2 list at the Library of Congress: 
> http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_list.php . It looks, 
> however, from this list that the 3 examples using @mainLang should be 
> "chu" for Old Church Slavonic instead of "OCS". Likewise does Greek 
> (Ancient presumably) look like it has changed. I made these changes in 
> the patch, but wanted to explain my reasoning. I also changed to lower 
> case (except for the first letter of the script) since this seems to 
> be the convention, as far as I can tell.
>
thanks, this looks better

> *10.7 Physical Description*
>
> This sentence seems to have some repetition, but I can't figure out 
> how its supposed to read: "These include aspects of the form, support, 
> extent, and quire structure of the manuscript object and of the way in 
> which the text is laid out on the page (<ptr target="#msph1"/>); the 
> styles  of writing, such as the way it is laid out on the page, the 
> styles of writing,  decorative features, any musical notation employed 
> and any annotations or marginalia (<ptr target="#msph2"/>); and 
> discussion of its binding, seals, and any accompanying material (<ptr 
> target="#msph3"/>)."
>

Yes, it's quite a mouthful as a sentence. I have recast it as a list.

> *10.7.2.4 Additions and Marginalia*
>
> It would seem that it might be helpful to have a means of describing 
> the relative location of marginalia (e.g., which margin, for example). 
> Is there some way to do this at present?
Not at present: the <marginalia> element simply contains prose.

>
> *10.7.3.3 Accompanying Material*
>
> Does the <accMat> example with a <quote> inside actually referring to 
> an "agency external to the text". And what if the note was from the 
> author him/herself? Would it still be an agency external to the text?
>
Yes. The "text" here is the ms description itself, so anything quoted 
from somewhere else (in this case the scrap of paper being described) is 
a <quote>

> take care,
> Brett

I try to :-)

Lou