Dear colleagues,
To the discussion of the last few days here are some comments from an archivist:
1. I agree that the question of element names isn’t the most important. On the other hand: even now it is important to understand the element names. Otherwise we will discuss different things (please remember our discussion last time in Munich about “witness”).
2. In my eyes, we should not look too much to TEI. We can just as well take EAD (Encoded Archival Description) as a reference, or those standards Patric named in his last mail. But all these standards are not made for describing charters and that is what we originally wanted to do. Now, a lot of the elements in our list are only in it because we also want to put printed document books (? = Urkundenbuch/Urkundenedition = recueil de chartes = codice diplomatico [Vocabulaire international de la diplomatique No. 75]) online. I’m not sure that this is the right way.
3. In my eyes we first should concentrate on the elements we will need to describe a single charter, to make a transcription or an edition or an abstract and last but not least a description of all external and internal features.
4. If we are ready with this, we should try to find a way to use these elements also while putting printed document books online. At that point we should look again to TEI etc. to see which elements will be useful for us.
5.
We should divide strictly 1) the
text on a charter from 2) the physical description and 3)its metadata and so
perhaps he should use something like this:
<cei>
<charter>
<text>(with the transcription/edition and/or the abstract)
<physdesc> (with the description of all external and internal features)
<metadata> (with all data belonging to the authenticity of the document)
Below you will find some comments to the current element list, I made before the discussion began to run more generally:
1. There must be the possibility to use <dateOrig> within <abstract> because in a lot of our older finding aids the original date is part of the abstract.
2. Why is <arch> part of <witness>? In my eyes we should always use <archidentifier> as a container for the four parts: town, archives, fond and single number etc. Also: the first element in the example must be: <archidentifier> and not <archstruct> (this mistake is also in archFond).
3. I think we should not use <idno> for the number of a document in an archives. It is not always a number but often a mixture of words and numbers. So, wy don’t we use the word reference (=> Vocabulaire international de la diplomatique No. 33) and perhaps we can change it to <archreference> to make a distinction between this element and the <ref>-element. <idno> for a number within a edition etc. is o.k. for me.
4. In general: in my eyes, we should use more often different elements for different things; for example: to distinguish between the date of the charter and all other dates that are named within the text of a charter, or a line break in the original charter and a line break in a book where the charter is edited etc.
5.
<issued> is “a
container date and place”. So why don’t we make it in the following
way:
<chdesc>
<issued>
<issueddate>
<issuedplace>
In general: why don’t we try to use similar names for those elements that are put together in one container like <issued> or <archidentifier>?
e.g.: <archidentifier>
<archlocation>
<arch>
<archfont>
<archreference>
6. I can’t find an element to mark an insert/vidimus/transsumpt(sorry: I can’t find any English expression) but I think we need it.
7. There must be more different elements for the different graphical signs (or special signs as Luciana would say) and one must be able to use them also under <chdesk> or <diplomaticanalysis> and not only under <tenor> and <sealdesc> like <pict>.
Karsten
Dr. Karsten Uhde
Archives School Marburg
Bismarckstr. 32
35037 Marburg
Germany
Tel.: ++49 6421 16971-25