[tei-council] repeating and typing tei:provenance

[Lou Burnard]

Well, my example was only a hypothetical one, and I don't want to insist 
on the point. I am probably over-cautious about applying "lets add a 
@type attribute" as a panacea....

If no-one apart from me has qualms about this particular instance, I am 
happy to vote for pressing ahead with the change as Gabby formulates it.


  elements to att.typed

On 26/09/11 15:23, James Cummings wrote:
> On 26/09/11 12:12, Lou Burnard wrote:
>> "type" of a provenance might relate to any number of things -- its
>> reliability, the kind of authority behind it, on what temporal basis
>> it's made, etc.
>   >For example, suppose at some time a manuscript was in a
>> collection which had a policy of checking up on it every 6 months. You
>> might decide either to enter lots of provenance records saying
>> effectively "it was taken out and dusted", or you might decide just to
>> record a single provenance record for the whole time, including the info
>> that dusting had been carried out every six months. Wouldn't these be of
>> two different "type"s ("periodic" and "summary") as well?
>
> I would argue that this is not a provenance though, that is a
> <custEvent>.  A<provenance>  is a single identifiable episode
> during the history of a manuscript... taking it out a checking it
> doesn't really count as that. It is an act of curation or
> custodial event looking after it in the resource-holding
> institution. A<provenance>  really is meant to be about the
> history of the manuscript, often a patchy set of "It was owned by
> so-and-so" and "it was stolen from this abbey", "it appeared in
> sotheby's on this date", etc.  Any activity taking part in the
> institution currently holding the manuscript would either be in
> <acquisition>  or be a<custEvent>.
>
>> Your examples of intended use ("found", "moved", "observed", "lost",
>> "destroyed", "restored" etc.) are fine for the case where you can map
>> each provenance to a single event, but this is not the only way that
>> <provenance>   might be used, and therefore not the only way they might be
>> typed.
>
> But that is precisely how<provenance>  is defined, is it not?  "a
> single identifiable episode during the history of a manuscript".
>    Ok, sure, 'found' and 'moved' can happen during a since
> <provenance>, I agree with that. But I would still argue that
> provenances could be classified consistent with the way we use
> @type elsewhere.
>
>> How about @eventType or even just @event ? (You could also add a value
>> such as "multiple" or "summary" of course)
>
> This seems unnecessary to me.  What Gaby is suggesting is
> something that classifies the 'type' of provenance, not
> necessarily the types of events that happen in that single
> provenance?
>
> -James
>