Difference between revisions of "Medieval MSS"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | *Is there any difference between medieval and modern in respect to msDesc? | |
| − | Can use MsDesc for modern manuscripts and non-manuscript materials, but it is often difficult. | + | *Can use MsDesc for modern manuscripts and non-manuscript materials, but it is often difficult. |
Suggestion of text-bearing object instead of manuscript, or taking the msDesc elements up a level. | Suggestion of text-bearing object instead of manuscript, or taking the msDesc elements up a level. | ||
Or grouping them with elements introduced to cope with other subsets of text-bearing objects. | Or grouping them with elements introduced to cope with other subsets of text-bearing objects. | ||
| − | Incunabula suggested as an area where non-ms materials have very similar concerns to manuscripts. | + | *Incunabula suggested as an area where non-ms materials have very similar concerns to manuscripts. |
Yet people are sometimes unwilling to use msDesc for this. | Yet people are sometimes unwilling to use msDesc for this. | ||
| − | 'author' not allowed inside 'p' or 'head', msItem to be used instead. | + | *'author' not allowed inside 'p' or 'head', msItem to be used instead. |
Not to be used in the way used in MASTER. Stops reduplication of information. | Not to be used in the way used in MASTER. Stops reduplication of information. | ||
| − | When describing a manuscript it should be recommended practice to supply the units (currently optional) But don't use nautical miles. | + | *When describing a manuscript it should be recommended practice to supply the units (currently optional) But don't use nautical miles. |
| − | 'support' could possibly be a phrase-level element instead of 'watermark', and 'watermark' only allowed as a child of it. | + | *'support' could possibly be a phrase-level element instead *of 'watermark', and 'watermark' only allowed as a child of it. |
| − | example of encoding of 'stamp' inside 'rubric' is silly, not really a phrase-level thing. Maybe better to be in 'provenance' or 'bindingDesc' somewhere. 'stamp' should not appear where text is being transcribed but the guidelines claim just this. | + | *example of encoding of 'stamp' inside 'rubric' is silly, not really a phrase-level thing. Maybe better to be in 'provenance' or 'bindingDesc' somewhere. 'stamp' should not appear where text is being transcribed but the guidelines claim just this. |
| + | |||
| + | * @scheme attribute on 'locus' pointing 'foliation' is a jolly good idea. | ||
Revision as of 16:55, 3 November 2007
- Is there any difference between medieval and modern in respect to msDesc?
- Can use MsDesc for modern manuscripts and non-manuscript materials, but it is often difficult.
Suggestion of text-bearing object instead of manuscript, or taking the msDesc elements up a level. Or grouping them with elements introduced to cope with other subsets of text-bearing objects.
- Incunabula suggested as an area where non-ms materials have very similar concerns to manuscripts.
Yet people are sometimes unwilling to use msDesc for this.
- 'author' not allowed inside 'p' or 'head', msItem to be used instead.
Not to be used in the way used in MASTER. Stops reduplication of information.
- When describing a manuscript it should be recommended practice to supply the units (currently optional) But don't use nautical miles.
- 'support' could possibly be a phrase-level element instead *of 'watermark', and 'watermark' only allowed as a child of it.
- example of encoding of 'stamp' inside 'rubric' is silly, not really a phrase-level thing. Maybe better to be in 'provenance' or 'bindingDesc' somewhere. 'stamp' should not appear where text is being transcribed but the guidelines claim just this.
- @scheme attribute on 'locus' pointing 'foliation' is a jolly good idea.
