[MEI-L] source-type metadata
Johannes Kepper
kepper at edirom.de
Wed Sep 15 17:17:48 CEST 2010
Am 15.09.2010 um 16:33 schrieb Axel Teich Geertinger <atge at kb.dk>:
> Hi Laurent & Raffaele,
>
>
>
> I see your point, and I am not happy with mixing information such as
> “print”, “score” and “first edition” either! It was an
> quick way to sort sources in the order we wanted, but that’s a bad e
> xcuse (for the “first edition” information we could of course use
> <editionstmt>...)
>
>
>
> Somewhere in <physdesc> could be the right place for the
> “print”/”manuscript”/”annotated print” etc. information,
> but using the @type on <physdesc> itself does not seem quite logical
> to me: “print” is not a type of physcial description, but a type
> of source (as a physical object).
>
> The “score” or “parts” type is describing the source’s
> content and should probably be placed somewhere else, though I would
> prefer something more specific than <source><notesstmt><annot>.
>
Regarding this, I would probably prefer to store it within music
(instead of the header). Using <score> / <parts> seems to be a
reasonable option. But of course this raises the question of data vs.
metadata…
Johannes
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Axel
>
>
>
>
>
> Fra: mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de [mailto:mei-l-
> bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de] På vegne af Raffaele Viglianti
> Sendt: 15. september 2010 15:04
> Til: Music Encoding Initiative
> Emne: Re: [MEI-L] source-type metadata
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> It seems to me that <mei:source> acts both as description of the
> source and as bibliographical entry, therefore it is not a good idea
> to add a typing directly on the element itself, because what is
> "typed" can be unclear (is it the bibliographical entry, the
> description, the physical object or its content?). Instead, I think,
> how the editor classifies the source should live somewhere within
> the elements that deal with the description of the source (and not
> with its bibliographical entry). So something along the lines of
> what Laurent suggests seems to me a sensible choice.
>
>
>
> The TEI handles the description of sources for critical editions
> with the <tei:witness> element, which only contains a limited amount
> of elements for a textual description.
>
> http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-witness.html
>
> Its wrapper, <tei:witList>, can be contained in <tei:sourceDesc>
> that is the equivalent of <mei:source>.
>
>
>
> Although I don't think it is necessary to add to MEI an equivalent
> to <tei:witness>, <mei:source> might still need an element that
> allows textual content for its description and categorisation
> without relying on <mei:notestmt> (mainly to avoid tag and @type
> abuse).
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Raffaele
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Laurent Pugin <laurent at music.mcgill.ca
> > wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I would suggest to try to keep information related to the physical
> description and information related to the edition separated. I have
> the impression that something like 'print_score_later' mixes several
> types of information, with the risk to have exponential possible
> combination. And the order might be problematic too if we want to
> use it as a search criteria.
>
> I would personally store within <physdesc> whether it is a 'print' a
> 'manuscript' etc. The @type could be an option. At the RISM, we use
> the following values, which might have to be extended:
> - print
> - autograph
> - doubtful autograph
> - manuscript
> - manuscript with autograph annotations
>
> To me, score/parts information does not seem to be related to the
> physical description. For example, In MARC21, the information is
> typically stored in a 254 tag (25X-28X tags being used for Edition,
> Imprint, Etc.):
> http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd254.html
>
> In a cross-walk from MARC21 to TEI I've been looking at, the 254 tag
> goes into a <noteStmt> within the <bibFull> element. If we want do
> something similar with what we have now in MEI, we would probably
> get something like:
>
> <sourcedesc>
> <source>
> <notestmt>
> <annot>Full score</annot>
> </notestmt>
> </source>
> </sourcedesc>
>
> But maybe we would need something more specific than an annotation?
>
> All the best,
> Laurent
>
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Axel Teich Geertinger <atge at kb.dk>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Benjamin
>
>
>
> I think @type on the source element would be a good idea. We are
> having the same problem, but have solved it for now by using @n
> instead to categorize the source type, but obviously @type would be
> more appropriate.
>
> We are using the following values so far:
>
>
>
> manuscript_sketch
>
> Manuscript, sketch
>
> manuscript_score_autograph
>
> Manuscript, score, autograph
>
> manuscript_score_copy
>
> Manuscript, score, copy
>
> manuscript_parts_autograph
>
> Manuscript, parts, autograph
>
> manuscript_parts_copy
>
> Manuscript, parts, copy
>
> print_score_first
>
> Printed score, first edition
>
> print_score_later
>
> Printed score, later edition
>
> print_parts
>
> Printed parts
>
> text_ms
>
> Textual source, manuscript
>
> text_print
>
> Textual source, print
>
> other
>
> Other
>
>
>
> We then use the source/titlestmt/title element to provide a more
> specific description of the source, e.g. “Score, fair copy,
> printer’s source” or “Printed part, Ove Scavenius' copy”.
>
> If anyone knows a better solution, I’d be happy to know about it.
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
> Axel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Fra: mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de [mailto:mei-l-
> bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de] På vegne af Benjamin Wolff Bohl
> Sendt: 15. september 2010 11:25
> Til: mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
> Emne: [MEI-L] source-type metadata
>
>
>
> Hi Mei-List(eners)!
>
>
>
> I got a question concerning the location of some metadata I would
> like to put into an MEI-file.
>
> I just don't know where I should put it.
>
>
>
> I would like to store a type on a source element I have, specifying
> whether it is a print or an autograph, maybe even more like a
> copyists copy or an edition.
>
>
>
> So in my code I have the following:
>
>
>
> <sourcedesc>
> <source xml:id="source_3c94e494-bc7e-4233-
> a27d-17671fc8d933">
> <titlestmt>
> <title>Londoner Abschrift</title>
> </titlestmt>
> <pubstmt>
> <date reg="2010">2010</date>
> <identifier type="siglum">K2</identifier>
> </pubstmt>
>
>
>
> Now I wondering whether the right place of such data would be an
> editionstmt or maybe the physdesc, which could contain even more
> detailed data concerning the creation of the source? (see below)
>
>
> <physdesc>
> <physmedium n="type">
> <physmedium n="support"></physmedium>
> <physmedium n="content"></physmedium>
> <physloc/>
> </physdesc>
> </source>
> </sourcedesc>
>
>
>
> O would it be best/easiest to have @type on source? (which currently
> is not possible)
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Benjamin
>
>
>
> ***********************************************************
>
> Projekt "Digitale Musikedition"
>
> Musikwissenschaftliches Seminar Detmold/Paderborn
>
> Gartenstraße 20
>
> D – 32756 Detmold
>
>
>
> Tel. +49 (0) 5231 / 975-665
>
> Fax: +49 (0) 5231 / 975-668
>
> ***********************************************************
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mei-l mailing list
>
>
> mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
>
> https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mei-l mailing list
> mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
> https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mei-l mailing list
> mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
> https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-l
-------------- n�chster Teil --------------
Ein Dateianhang mit HTML-Daten wurde abgetrennt...
URL: <http://lists.uni-paderborn.de/pipermail/mei-l/attachments/20100915/d1696122/attachment.htm>
More information about the mei-l
mailing list