Dear all,
I'm reading the draft of the manuscript description element for the TEI consortium, who will be usefull to describe our charters. Indeed, all elements are available for us and we must understand "manuscript" as "handwritten sources". So, I think we can use <msDescription> for <chDesc>. For more informations, you can see this draft : http://www.tei-c.org/P5/Guidelines/MS.html.
* Yes, but we have to be aware of the fact that <mcDesc> is limited to the description of the physical phenomena of an object. We would have to control whether there are semantic, content-oriented elements in <chDesc> which would of course not fit into <msDesc>. in <chDesc> there are elements like <abstract> <issuer>, <issuePlace>, <issueDate>, <recipient>, <diplomaticAnalysis>, <class>, <auth>, <nota>, <facsimilia>, <prints>, <regesta>, <studies>. These elements DO NOT describe physical aspects of the charter as "a piece of parchment". Instead they provide some sort of header-Information. To avoid misunderstanding maybe we can find a better term than <chDesc>?
For the other questions, I answer between the lines :
<text type="charter"> replaces <document> for the single charter.
I'm very OK, this proposition goes in the TEI's direction.
I still don't like it but will not oppose to this any longer.
<chDesc> (for CharterDescription) replaces <regestum> for the metadata.
Cf my proposition.
And my disagreement.
<idno> replaces <number> for the given identifying number of a single charter.
Yes.
o.k.
<listBibl type="facsimilia|prints|regesta|studies"> replaces the dedicated elements <facsimilia> <prints> <regesta> <studies>. Very good. For informations, I gave up the <witness n="Indiqué"> for <listBibl type="Indiqué"> like Georg suggested me and it's perfect. Thanks Georg ;-)
o.k.
The discussion on the segmentation of the tenor didn't reach a consensus. As a compromise I would like to suggest to keep the elements of the well-established diplomatic terminology (<arenga>, <narratio>, <dispositio> etc.) but do not force them into the strict hierarchy of the <protocoll>, <context> and <eschatocoll>. This questions are more complicated than I thank in November. Indeed, must we use <div>, <seg> or new elements ? I continue to think this informations must be in attribute. So, i ask me if we should use in the good case <div> or <seg> and take in the attibute the right part. No ?
Still the crucial point is: will we have subtypes in that diplomatic terminology? If we want to describe an arenga as a patricular type of arenga it would be better to have this as an element instead of an attribute. <seg type='arenga' subtype=''xyz-arenga> would be extremely ugly and unconvenient. There are other analytical elements for other types of text. See <actor>, <camera>, <dictScrap> etc. On the other hand: since the formula isn't visible in the layout of a charter and doesn't lead to functional text elements in this sense (of text as document) we may stick to <seg> with a controlled vocabulary for attributes ...
Did I miss anything? I don't think.
Sure. Practical exeperiments will show.
Sincerely Gautier
Best, Patrick Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen Projekt "Portal Digitalisierter Drucke" (PDD) Abteilung DD18 Papendiek 14 37073 Goettingen +49 - (0)551 - 39-8117 sahle@sub.uni-goettingen.de Privat: Schildweg 10 37073 Göttingen ... und ... Häuschensweg 2a 50827 Köln +49 - (0)221 - 2805695 Sahle@uni-koeln.de