Dear colleagues, although I set beginning of June as a deadline for the discussion of the diplomatic discourse concepts in the CEI tag list I would like to pick up the issue. Our colleagues from Toronto have recently provided me with a list of parts of the diplomatic discourse they use for analysing high medieval english private charters. I have tried to integrat these into the tag list and summed it up in a facet of its own (DEEDS) although the elements all appear in the facet "diplomatic discourse" too. Their list contains several terms that may be too specific to use them as own elements, but as the CEI first task is to provide a proposal for semantics I don't see any problem to keep all the names as they could be used for type-attribute values too. But I'm curious what you think. Do you have proposals for better terms? Do you miss still elements of the diplomatic discourse that could be adressed via markup? While compiling the list I got into a problem I would be happy to have it discussed by all the diplomatic scholars subscribed to this list: The DEEDS-Project distinguishes between "issuer" and the "person acting". In charters issued by kings, popes etc. and in the tradition of the "charta" both roles seem to coincide. But am I right that it can be a concept to distinguish between the issuing notary and the persons juridically acting in an notarial instrument? Or would you propose other names and concepts to keep both case together where they are the same, and apart where they aren't? All the best Georg Vogeler -- ------------------------------------- Dr.Georg Vogeler Università del Salento Dipartimento dei Beni delle Arti e della Storia Monastero degli Olivetani Viale San Nicola I - 73100 Lecce +39 346 7270613 g.vogeler@lrz.uni-muenchen.de http://www.geschichte.uni-muenchen.de/ghw/personen_vogeler.shtml
At 05:27 AM 09/07/2007, you wrote:
While compiling the list I got into a problem I would be happy to have it discussed by all the diplomatic scholars subscribed to this list: The DEEDS-Project distinguishes between "issuer" and the "person acting". In charters issued by kings, popes etc. and in the tradition of the "charta" both roles seem to coincide. But am I right that it can be a concept to distinguish between the issuing notary and the persons juridically acting in an notarial instrument? Or would you propose other names and concepts to keep both case together where they are the same, and apart where they aren't?
Isn't this the classic distinction (theorized by the Germans, if memory does not fail me) between the "author of the record" and the "author of the act"? In records issued ad substantiam they usually coincide, while in those issued ad probationem they do not. The exception in the former category is constituted not only by notarial instruments (not all of them), but also by some specific records issued by collective entities, such as cities and universities, where the author of the act is the authority in charge, but the record is issued by the entity. A modern example is a patent for an invention, which is issued by the USA (for example) but the author of the act is the patent office of the Secretary of State. In another example, grants issued by the Queen to Canadian crown corporations show the Queen as the author of the record but the relevant Provincial Government as the author of the act. As to the DEEDS terms, the Michaels and I exchanged notes about them before they were sent to you, so I am fine with them (of course confined as they are to the Latin language and to a specific historical period). Ciao, Luciana Dr. Luciana Duranti Professor, Archival Studies Director, The InterPARES Project www.interpares.org School of Library, Archival and Information Studies www.slais.ubc.ca The University of British Columbia Suite 301, 6190 Agronomy Road Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z3 CANADA Tel: 604.822.2587 FA: 604.822.6006 www.interpares.org/ld/
Dear Luciana, you're right I pointed on the distinction of "author of record" and "auther of act" and I introduced these concepts into the database. What I asekd myself was not so much establishing this dinstinction but to ask how to deal with them formally: Should we assume that a record is issued ad substantiam if the indication of an "author of the act" is missing, i.e. that the "author of record" includes concepts of "author of act"? What I don't like in this way is the argumentum ex negativo, and thus I would suggest to keep the "author/issuer" for this case and define authorRecord and authorAct as instances of this class for cases when the distinction is neccessary. What do you think? All the best Georg Luciana Duranti schrieb:
At 05:27 AM 09/07/2007, you wrote:
While compiling the list I got into a problem I would be happy to have it discussed by all the diplomatic scholars subscribed to this list: The DEEDS-Project distinguishes between "issuer" and the "person acting". In charters issued by kings, popes etc. and in the tradition of the "charta" both roles seem to coincide. But am I right that it can be a concept to distinguish between the issuing notary and the persons juridically acting in an notarial instrument? Or would you propose other names and concepts to keep both case together where they are the same, and apart where they aren't?
Isn't this the classic distinction (theorized by the Germans, if memory does not fail me) between the "author of the record" and the "author of the act"? In records issued ad substantiam they usually coincide, while in those issued ad probationem they do not. The exception in the former category is constituted not only by notarial instruments (not all of them), but also by some specific records issued by collective entities, such as cities and universities, where the author of the act is the authority in charge, but the record is issued by the entity. A modern example is a patent for an invention, which is issued by the USA (for example) but the author of the act is the patent office of the Secretary of State. In another example, grants issued by the Queen to Canadian crown corporations show the Queen as the author of the record but the relevant Provincial Government as the author of the act.
As to the DEEDS terms, the Michaels and I exchanged notes about them before they were sent to you, so I am fine with them (of course confined as they are to the Latin language and to a specific historical period).
Ciao,
Luciana
Dr. Luciana Duranti Professor, Archival Studies Director, The InterPARES Project www.interpares.org School of Library, Archival and Information Studies www.slais.ubc.ca The University of British Columbia Suite 301, 6190 Agronomy Road Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z3 CANADA Tel: 604.822.2587 FA: 604.822.6006 www.interpares.org/ld/
-- ------------------------------------- Dr.Georg Vogeler Università del Salento Dipartimento dei Beni delle Arti e della Storia Monastero degli Olivetani Viale San Nicola I - 73100 Lecce +39 346 7270613 g.vogeler@lrz.uni-muenchen.de http://www.geschichte.uni-muenchen.de/ghw/personen_vogeler.shtml
Dear Georg: The problem I have with your solution is that, technically, you would need to have 3 fields instead of two and the first one would not coincide with either of the other two, while, conceptually, it must coincide with one of the two. My solution is to have the two fields and to fill them always, repeating the identical content when the AuthorRecord and AuthorAct coincide. My two cents, Luciana PS. Are you still in Italy? I am in San Benedetto del Tronto for the holidays. At 08:02 AM 28/07/2007, you wrote:
Dear Luciana,
you're right I pointed on the distinction of "author of record" and "auther of act" and I introduced these concepts into the database. What I asekd myself was not so much establishing this dinstinction but to ask how to deal with them formally: Should we assume that a record is issued ad substantiam if the indication of an "author of the act" is missing, i.e. that the "author of record" includes concepts of "author of act"? What I don't like in this way is the argumentum ex negativo, and thus I would suggest to keep the "author/issuer" for this case and define authorRecord and authorAct as instances of this class for cases when the distinction is neccessary. What do you think?
All the best
Georg
Luciana Duranti schrieb:
At 05:27 AM 09/07/2007, you wrote:
While compiling the list I got into a problem I would be happy to have it discussed by all the diplomatic scholars subscribed to this list: The DEEDS-Project distinguishes between "issuer" and the "person acting". In charters issued by kings, popes etc. and in the tradition of the "charta" both roles seem to coincide. But am I right that it can be a concept to distinguish between the issuing notary and the persons juridically acting in an notarial instrument? Or would you propose other names and concepts to keep both case together where they are the same, and apart where they aren't?
Isn't this the classic distinction (theorized by the Germans, if memory does not fail me) between the "author of the record" and the "author of the act"? In records issued ad substantiam they usually coincide, while in those issued ad probationem they do not. The exception in the former category is constituted not only by notarial instruments (not all of them), but also by some specific records issued by collective entities, such as cities and universities, where the author of the act is the authority in charge, but the record is issued by the entity. A modern example is a patent for an invention, which is issued by the USA (for example) but the author of the act is the patent office of the Secretary of State. In another example, grants issued by the Queen to Canadian crown corporations show the Queen as the author of the record but the relevant Provincial Government as the author of the act.
As to the DEEDS terms, the Michaels and I exchanged notes about them before they were sent to you, so I am fine with them (of course confined as they are to the Latin language and to a specific historical period).
Ciao,
Luciana
Dr. Luciana Duranti Professor, Archival Studies Director, The InterPARES Project www.interpares.org School of Library, Archival and Information Studies www.slais.ubc.ca The University of British Columbia Suite 301, 6190 Agronomy Road Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z3 CANADA Tel: 604.822.2587 FA: 604.822.6006 www.interpares.org/ld/
-- ------------------------------------- Dr.Georg Vogeler
Università del Salento Dipartimento dei Beni delle Arti e della Storia Monastero degli Olivetani Viale San Nicola I - 73100 Lecce
+39 346 7270613
g.vogeler@lrz.uni-muenchen.de http://www.geschichte.uni-muenchen.de/ghw/personen_vogeler.shtml
Dr. Luciana Duranti Professor, Archival Studies Director, The InterPARES Project www.interpares.org School of Library, Archival and Information Studies www.slais.ubc.ca The University of British Columbia Suite 301, 6190 Agronomy Road Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z3 CANADA Tel: 604.822.2587 FA: 604.822.6006 www.interpares.org/ld/
The problem I have with your solution is that, technically, you would need to have 3 fields instead of two and the first one would not coincide with either of the other two, while, conceptually, it must coincide with one of the two. My solution is to have the two fields and to fill them always, repeating the identical content when the AuthorRecord and AuthorAct coincide.
This case seems to be a good example to show the difference between table oriented databases and semistructured XML. Your solution expressed in XML could read: <authorRecord><authorAct>Frederic II.</authorAct></authorRecord> makes a donation to the monastery of Montecassino. Somehow odd ... Thus I would prefer a solution like the TEI does with generic and specific elements like e.g. <name> and <persName>, <geogName> etc. following the model of <name>. Beyond my actual technical knowledge is, how to generalize search algorithms stating that a search inside of //author is extended also to //authorRecord or //authorAct beyond simple "OR" mechanisms. But maybe my concept isn't appropriate for our kind of situation. All the best Georg
My two cents,
Luciana
PS. Are you still in Italy? I am in San Benedetto del Tronto for the holidays.
At 08:02 AM 28/07/2007, you wrote:
Dear Luciana,
you're right I pointed on the distinction of "author of record" and "auther of act" and I introduced these concepts into the database. What I asekd myself was not so much establishing this dinstinction but to ask how to deal with them formally: Should we assume that a record is issued ad substantiam if the indication of an "author of the act" is missing, i.e. that the "author of record" includes concepts of "author of act"? What I don't like in this way is the argumentum ex negativo, and thus I would suggest to keep the "author/issuer" for this case and define authorRecord and authorAct as instances of this class for cases when the distinction is neccessary. What do you think?
All the best
Georg
Luciana Duranti schrieb:
At 05:27 AM 09/07/2007, you wrote:
While compiling the list I got into a problem I would be happy to have it discussed by all the diplomatic scholars subscribed to this list: The DEEDS-Project distinguishes between "issuer" and the "person acting". In charters issued by kings, popes etc. and in the tradition of the "charta" both roles seem to coincide. But am I right that it can be a concept to distinguish between the issuing notary and the persons juridically acting in an notarial instrument? Or would you propose other names and concepts to keep both case together where they are the same, and apart where they aren't?
Isn't this the classic distinction (theorized by the Germans, if memory does not fail me) between the "author of the record" and the "author of the act"? In records issued ad substantiam they usually coincide, while in those issued ad probationem they do not. The exception in the former category is constituted not only by notarial instruments (not all of them), but also by some specific records issued by collective entities, such as cities and universities, where the author of the act is the authority in charge, but the record is issued by the entity. A modern example is a patent for an invention, which is issued by the USA (for example) but the author of the act is the patent office of the Secretary of State. In another example, grants issued by the Queen to Canadian crown corporations show the Queen as the author of the record but the relevant Provincial Government as the author of the act.
As to the DEEDS terms, the Michaels and I exchanged notes about them before they were sent to you, so I am fine with them (of course confined as they are to the Latin language and to a specific historical period).
Ciao,
Luciana
Dr. Luciana Duranti Professor, Archival Studies Director, The InterPARES Project www.interpares.org School of Library, Archival and Information Studies www.slais.ubc.ca The University of British Columbia Suite 301, 6190 Agronomy Road Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z3 CANADA Tel: 604.822.2587 FA: 604.822.6006 www.interpares.org/ld/
-- ------------------------------------- Dr.Georg Vogeler
Università del Salento Dipartimento dei Beni delle Arti e della Storia Monastero degli Olivetani Viale San Nicola I - 73100 Lecce
+39 346 7270613
g.vogeler@lrz.uni-muenchen.de http://www.geschichte.uni-muenchen.de/ghw/personen_vogeler.shtml
Dr. Luciana Duranti Professor, Archival Studies Director, The InterPARES Project www.interpares.org School of Library, Archival and Information Studies www.slais.ubc.ca The University of British Columbia Suite 301, 6190 Agronomy Road Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z3 CANADA Tel: 604.822.2587 FA: 604.822.6006 www.interpares.org/ld/
-- ------------------------------------- Dr.Georg Vogeler Università del Salento Dipartimento dei Beni delle Arti e della Storia Monastero degli Olivetani Viale San Nicola I - 73100 Lecce +39 346 7270613 g.vogeler@lrz.uni-muenchen.de http://www.geschichte.uni-muenchen.de/ghw/personen_vogeler.shtml
Dear all, Just a comment. If the we speak about marking up a running existing text, the solution below is excellent. We tagged up museum catalogues this way. If the purpose is to extract information into a database or some other structured information system this method works perfect. Still I think we should ad a "personid" attribute in both tags and keep a list of identified persons in the header or at the beginning of the document, see the newest version of the P5. Regards, Christian-Emil Ore On 25.08.2007 12:26, Georg Vogeler wrote:
The problem I have with your solution is that, technically, you would need to have 3 fields instead of two and the first one would not coincide with either of the other two, while, conceptually, it must coincide with one of the two. My solution is to have the two fields and to fill them always, repeating the identical content when the AuthorRecord and AuthorAct coincide.
This case seems to be a good example to show the difference between table oriented databases and semistructured XML. Your solution expressed in XML could read:
<authorRecord><authorAct>Frederic II.</authorAct></authorRecord> makes a donation to the monastery of Montecassino.
Somehow odd ...
Thus I would prefer a solution like the TEI does with generic and specific elements like e.g. <name> and <persName>, <geogName> etc. following the model of <name>.
Beyond my actual technical knowledge is, how to generalize search algorithms stating that a search inside of //author is extended also to //authorRecord or //authorAct beyond simple "OR" mechanisms. But maybe my concept isn't appropriate for our kind of situation.
All the best
Georg
My two cents,
Luciana
PS. Are you still in Italy? I am in San Benedetto del Tronto for the holidays.
At 08:02 AM 28/07/2007, you wrote:
Dear Luciana,
you're right I pointed on the distinction of "author of record" and "auther of act" and I introduced these concepts into the database. What I asekd myself was not so much establishing this dinstinction but to ask how to deal with them formally: Should we assume that a record is issued ad substantiam if the indication of an "author of the act" is missing, i.e. that the "author of record" includes concepts of "author of act"? What I don't like in this way is the argumentum ex negativo, and thus I would suggest to keep the "author/issuer" for this case and define authorRecord and authorAct as instances of this class for cases when the distinction is neccessary. What do you think?
All the best
Georg
Luciana Duranti schrieb:
At 05:27 AM 09/07/2007, you wrote:
While compiling the list I got into a problem I would be happy to have it discussed by all the diplomatic scholars subscribed to this list: The DEEDS-Project distinguishes between "issuer" and the "person acting". In charters issued by kings, popes etc. and in the tradition of the "charta" both roles seem to coincide. But am I right that it can be a concept to distinguish between the issuing notary and the persons juridically acting in an notarial instrument? Or would you propose other names and concepts to keep both case together where they are the same, and apart where they aren't? Isn't this the classic distinction (theorized by the Germans, if memory does not fail me) between the "author of the record" and the "author of the act"? In records issued ad substantiam they usually coincide, while in those issued ad probationem they do not. The exception in the former category is constituted not only by notarial instruments (not all of them), but also by some specific records issued by collective entities, such as cities and universities, where the author of the act is the authority in charge, but the record is issued by the entity. A modern example is a patent for an invention, which is issued by the USA (for example) but the author of the act is the patent office of the Secretary of State. In another example, grants issued by the Queen to Canadian crown corporations show the Queen as the author of the record but the relevant Provincial Government as the author of the act.
As to the DEEDS terms, the Michaels and I exchanged notes about them before they were sent to you, so I am fine with them (of course confined as they are to the Latin language and to a specific historical period).
Ciao,
Luciana
Dr. Luciana Duranti Professor, Archival Studies Director, The InterPARES Project www.interpares.org School of Library, Archival and Information Studies www.slais.ubc.ca The University of British Columbia Suite 301, 6190 Agronomy Road Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z3 CANADA Tel: 604.822.2587 FA: 604.822.6006 www.interpares.org/ld/
-- ------------------------------------- Dr.Georg Vogeler
Università del Salento Dipartimento dei Beni delle Arti e della Storia Monastero degli Olivetani Viale San Nicola I - 73100 Lecce
+39 346 7270613
g.vogeler@lrz.uni-muenchen.de http://www.geschichte.uni-muenchen.de/ghw/personen_vogeler.shtml Dr. Luciana Duranti Professor, Archival Studies Director, The InterPARES Project www.interpares.org School of Library, Archival and Information Studies www.slais.ubc.ca The University of British Columbia Suite 301, 6190 Agronomy Road Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z3 CANADA Tel: 604.822.2587 FA: 604.822.6006 www.interpares.org/ld/
participants (3)
-
Christian-Emil Ore
-
Georg Vogeler
-
Luciana Duranti