#138 data type of @scribe and @script

AMBER
closed
nobody
5
2010-09-28
2009-11-19
Torsten Schassan
No

Shouldn't the data type of @scribe and @script be data.pointer rather than data.name? I would expect an explanation (i.e. biographical details about the scribe, or characteristics of the script) somewhere else if these attributes are filled. Thus, the value of the attribute would be a pointer instead of just a name of something? Especially as the description of @scribe states, that it "gives a standard name or other identifier" (!).

Discussion

  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2009-11-20

    • milestone: --> AMBER
     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2009-11-20

    I can see why you might want this for @scribe, assuming you know more about the scribe than their conventional name (though how often is that the case?), but what element would @script point to? For most usages these attributes are just a convenient way of normalising references (like @key) rather than requiring the stricter kind of validation which @ref or your proposal would permit-- or rather, require. This change would thus break a lot of existing documents.

     
  • Elena Pierazzo
    Elena Pierazzo
    2009-12-01

    I agree Torsten you but I also see Lou's point about retro-compatibility. Perhaps we should add @scriptRef as pointer (as we did for <w> which has now @lemma and @lemmaRef for this very reason) and leave @script as it is. We definitely need a way to describe scripts properly!
    Once we have done it, I think we have also to add something similar to <handNotes> in the <profileDesc> in order to describe a script properly.

     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2009-12-06

    Presumably if @scribe (or @scribeRef) is a pointer it should point to a <person> and @script or @scriptRef should point to a <handNote>?

     
  • Elena Pierazzo
    Elena Pierazzo
    2009-12-06

    No to <handNote>, which describe the type of hand, but to something like <scriptNote> that describe the kind of script. For instance you want to say that the type of script is used mainly for the production of books or for charters; that was used mostly in a particular area/scriptorium, and in a particular date range. You can also say that the script is characterised by a particular shape of a given letter etc.
    Into a <handNote> you will perhaps say that this particular scribe uses the script in a personal way, with log-short descendant, using a pen which is cut in a different way, using an ink of a given colour, etc.
    Make sense?

     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2010-04-30

    Nowhere to define a script; need to point to scribe and to script, both distinct. Not the same as hand. Need to decide on referring policy.

     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2010-09-14

    Proposal is (I think): 1. define new <scriptDesc> containing multiple <scriptNote>s (analagous to typeNote for typography)
    2. Make @script a data pointer, pointing to a <scriptNote>
    3. Make @scribe a data pointer, pointing to a <person> somewhere

    The problem with (2) is that this is quite a lot of overhead if all you want to say is @script="fraktur" and also breaks existing documents. Hence

    4. Leave @script and @scribe unchanged, but add @scriptRef and @scribeRef explicitly as pointing variants on them

    Do we need both <typeNote> and <scriptNote>? would it not be better to define <writingNote> for either?

     
  • Martin Holmes
    Martin Holmes
    2010-09-14

    Adding @scriptRef and @scribeRef as pointers is uncontroversial and does not break backward compatibility, so I'd agree with that. Any other changes need more discussion.

     
  • Kevin Hawkins
    Kevin Hawkins
    2010-09-15

    To clarify, the proposal we are considering is to do both of the following:

    a) define new <scriptDesc> containing multiple
    <scriptNote>s (analagous to typeNote for typography)

    b) Leave @script and @scribe unchanged, but add @scriptRef and @scribeRef
    explicitly as pointing variants on these elements. These new attributes would be available in every place that @script and @scribe are currently available, respectively.

     
  • BODARD Gabriel
    BODARD Gabriel
    2010-09-16

    I agree with the addition of @scriptRef & @scribeRef.

    I wonder though about the need for a new scriptNote etc. if there is already @typeNote which serves almost exactly the same function. We have often agreed to use elements named <ms*> to describe something that isn't technically a "manuscript", so why not use typeNote (or rename it <writingNote> as Lou suggests) to include script information?

     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2010-09-28

    Added scriptNote and scriptDesc, @scribeRef and @scriptRef. Also added some wording to PH and MS to explain how they are to be used. Need some examples and test files. Note also that we have both <handDesc> within <physDesc> and <handNotes> within <profileDesc> to contain <handNote> elements; this seems like overkill.

     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2010-09-28

    • status: open --> closed