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