Dear all, I have been on a winter vacation and have not had the opportunity to participate in the discussion. My comment is to the entire discussion about concept, TEI,DC,FRBR and CIDOC CRM. DC I find too weak and I think we should not concider to use it. FRBR is focused on the need of the libraries, and has the 4 levels: work, expression, manifestation and item CIDOC CRM was originally meant to be a conceptual model for the museum sector. In contrast to most models CIDOC CRM is truly event based and can handle what happens with both material and immaterial objects (like the abstract content of a image, text and a charter or a museum artefact like a piece of parchment. TEI is a set of recommendation on how to mark up electronic transcriptions of printed or hand written text. TEI can also be seen as a storing/archival format for texts. In the TEI tradition on finds the Old Norse text archive initiative (www.menota.org). The last 3 years an open working group initiated by the CRM SIG and the revision group on the FRBR, has been working on a harmonisation of FRBR and CRM. (see http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/frbr_inro.html) and a first version called FRBRoo has been published on the URL http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/frbr_drafts.html. The intension of the work behind the FRBRoo is to create an event centric conceptual model both intellectual work and physical objects. The FRBRoo has inherited the four levels of FRBR but differs between what is common to a set of industrially produced copies and a single manifestation like a manuscript. In FRBR both are said to be manifestations. The abstract content of a charter may be seen as an expression and the physical charter is a manifestation singleton. A copy (vidimus) will be another expression. The two will be connected by an event. Thus the history or chain of events connected to a (abstract) text can be expressed in this framework. The history of the physical object can also be expressed in the same framework as can the content (a reading). So far I can see, the CEI dtd is in the TEI tradition and contains elements for formal parts of charters and physical parts and also elements for marking up printed editions of charters and also printed regesta collections. As long as we studying the content of charters as texts I think we should let CEI in this respect be an extension to TEI. The TEI header should be extended to full FRBRoo. The information given by a reading of a document may be kept separate from the CEI document or stored in a separate part by can be anchored to the corresponding parts of the text. METS is a very nice wau to combine different electronic resources and may well be used in this setting. This is all on an experimental level, but clearly possibble. I will try to explain the main ideas in my 15(!) minutes talk. Unfortunately I am not able to participate in the meeting on Saturday. I hope we can have some discussions during the seminar. Regards, Christian-Emil Ore Patrick Sahle wrote:
Cher Gautier, dear all,
With this list and this classification, we obtain a conceptual model to describe charters with the different problematic (archive science, edition, digitalisation, diplomatic perspectives...). This conceptual model is our reference and if we don't use the same name to our elements, it's not so a problem if each element corresponds with this model.
I completely agree with that. That's actually what I will try to do in my presentation: develop a conceptual model for the description of charters (as a prerequisite for future portal building and interoperability of data). To keep things simple I will concentrate on the Metadata-Level - but that will be already quite complex.
We really need a consensus on what our "object" is and how it can be described. If we have that, then we can try to derive from that a wider model of all the aspects of charters we wish to document or to encode. And if we have that wider model, we can start to think about element names, attribute names and values.
In my basic model I will regard (implicitly) the underlying concepts of at least the TEI-Header, the Dublin Core Abstract Model and FRBR, although none of these will completely fill the bill.
Are there any further suggestions as to which other conceptual approaches I may take into account?
Best regards, Patrick
Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen Projekt "Zentrales Verzeichnis Digitalisierte Drucke" (zvdd) - http://www.zvdd.de Projekt "Online-Portal für digitalisierte Kulturgüter in Niedersachsen" (OPAL) - http://www.opal-niedersachsen.de Abteilung DD18 / RDD Papendiek 14 37073 Goettingen Tel.: +49 - (0)551 - 39-13789 Fax: +49 - (0)551 - 39-3856 sahle (at) sub.uni-goettingen.de
Privat: Görlitzer Str. 18 37085 Göttingen +49 - (0)551 - 3709303 Sahle (at) uni-koeln.de