[tei-council] repeating and typing tei:provenance

[Pierazzo, Elena]

Hi Gabby,

You have my blessing, in case you needed it. I don't think there is the
need of another FR as the possibility of allowing multiple <provenance> is
contemplated within the initial description of the ticket.
Best
Elena
 


On 23/09/2011 16:55, "Bodard, Gabriel" <gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk> wrote:

>Some Council members will already have seen the ticket posted by Lou a
>couple days ago (http://purl.com/TEI/FR/3411976) re the conflict between
>the definition of tei:provenance, "descriptive or other information
>concerning *a single identifiable episode* during the history of a
>manuscript" on the one hand, and on the other examples (including that
>at http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/MS.html#mshy) in
>which mutiple episodes are described in a single provenance.
>
>I pointed out, in support of the examples over the definition, that
>provenance includes among its possible children tei:listEvent, and that
>some projects have already used this to represent different episodes in
>a manuscript's history within a single tei:provenance.
>
>The consensus on this ticket however seems to be that the definition is
>correct, the examples should be emended, and multiple episodes should be
>represented by repeated, dated tei:provenance elements in tei:history.
>It has also been suggested that provenance is a specialization of
>tei"event, so the usage is fine.
>
>If that is the case, then I'd like to propose (does this need another
>ticket?) that as well as changes to the guidelines and correction of
>examples, the provenance element should allow att.typed (as event does),
>so that multiple provenances in the history of a single manuscript or
>object can be typed ("found", "moved", "observed", "lost", "destroyed",
>"restored" etc.), and looser subtypes can be used to differentiate
>between different kinds of loss, for example. (We were in the process of
>writing up a controlled set of values for tei:event/@type for the EpiDoc
>guidelines, with the intention of leaving @subtype unconstrained.)
>
>Does anyone object to this proposal? Should I put up a new FR ticket for
>it? I'd like to be able to let the EpiDoc community know what we've
>decided so it can be written into our ODD in advance of the next TEI
>release, if possible.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Gabby
>
>-- 
>Dr Gabriel BODARD
>(Research Associate in Digital Epigraphy)
>
>Department of Digital Humanities
>King's College London
>26-29 Drury Lane
>London WC2B 5RL
>
>Email: gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk
>Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
>Fax: +44 (0)20 7848 2980
>
>http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
>http://www.currentepigraphy.org/
>_______________________________________________
>tei-council mailing list
>tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>
>PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived