[tei-council] repeating and typing tei:provenance

[Gabriel Bodard]

One further thought: I note that while tei:event has att.responsibility, 
giving it both @cert and @resp, as discussed below, tei:provenance does 
not. An oversight?

G

On 2011-09-26 15:53, Lou Burnard wrote:
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-- 
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/