The manuscript chapter in TEI guidelines is, correct me if I am wrong,
the reesult of the work in the Master project. The Master project had
the objective to develop a xml shceme and recommendation for encoding
manuscript catalogues. The work was based on the practice manifested in
a series of manuscript catalogues and on practice in selected libraries
and archives. In this way the work was indeed an example of practical
A manuscript is a physical, man made artefact, and is in this view
similar to any other artefact, say a sword (not not neccessarily
Excalibur). Thus, in a conceptual model there may be some specialising
extensions to the general artefact model for manuscripts as it may be
for paintings or fabrics.
In addition the manuscript module contains elements for describing the
intellectual content of a manuscript (<msContents> (manuscript contents)
describes the intellectual content of a manuscript or manuscript part,
either as a series of paragraphs or as a series of structured manuscript
If TEI had been created top down (and not as the work of more or less
independent groups), my claim is that there had made a module for the
description of physical objects and then any necessary specialisations
for the description of manuscripts/encoding of manuscript catalogues.
The msContents could have been a generalisation of a general
description of intellectual work like the one we find in FRBR/FRBRoo.
It was, at least my intention, in the paper given ( by Øyivind Eide and
me) at DH2008 in Oulo to analyse what is missing and what is superfluous
in TEI seen for a given cultural heritage ontology (CIDOC-CRM). On
observation was that the manuscript module is simply a specialisation
of a general module for the description of physical object. This is the
motivation for introducing the Object -element. One should go through
the manuscript module and introduce generalised elements for elements
like Contents for msContents or use elements like objectDesc as they are.
On 23.04.2012 17:44, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2012, at 14:08, Syd Bauman wrote:
>> And in some stretch, Sebastian,<msDesc> is not so unlike<person>
>> (et. al).
> yes, I agree.
>> It is a structured description which has a set of
>> manuscript-specific (as opposed to person-specific) elements which
>> make use of existing TEI elements where reasonable, and which provide
>> an escape hatch of very generic elements that can be used in addition
>> or instead of the specific ones. It's just that in<msDesc> the very
>> generic elements aren't as nice as the<state>,<trait>, and<event>
> all true. both forks (msDesc vs person/place/org) have good features.
> So you suggest that instead of perpetuating the person/place/org
> system into object, we should set about defining the middle ground
> merge of the best parts of both schemes, with expectation that one
> day all of ms/person/place/object/org fall into a common pattern. that
> would be a good aim.
> Stormageddon Rahtz
> Head of Information and Support Group
> Oxford University Computing Services
> 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
> Sólo le pido a Dios
> que el futuro no me sea indiferente
> For Developers, A Lot Can Happen In A Second.
> Boundary is the first to Know...and Tell You.
> Monitor Your Applications in Ultra-Fine Resolution. Try it FREE!
> Tei-ontology-sig mailing list