[tei-council] repeating and typing tei:provenance
laurent.romary at inria.fr
Mon Sep 26 11:17:07 EDT 2011
Another good point. If no one else shouts out loud, Gabriel can prepare the changes.
Le 26 sept. 2011 à 17:08, Gabriel Bodard a écrit :
> 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?
> 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
>>> 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
>> tei-council mailing list
>> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>> 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
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived
INRIA & HUB-IDSL
laurent.romary at inria.fr
More information about the tei-council