[MEI-L] physLoc

[Roland, Perry (pdr4h)]

Axel,



To describe the provenance of two copies in different locations, I would leave your example exactly as it is.  Or I might even compress the two <provenance> elements into one --


<source>
  <physDesc>
    <provenance>This relates to one location. This relates to the other location.</provenance>
  </physDesc>
  <physLoc>
    <repository>some archive</repository>
  </physLoc>
  <physLoc>
    <repository>some other archive</repository>
  </physLoc>
</source>



The text in <provenance> explains its relationship to the items in the different locations.



@sameas is incorrect, but I would not attempt to connect the <provenance> element to the <physLoc> elements.  That's a level of detail that is not required using this "text-based" approach.  Going to the FRBR approach is a better option for that level of detail.



In order to make the distinction between the two approaches more clear, it might be worth considering allowing only one <physLoc> in <source>.  The example then would be


<source>
  <physDesc>
    <provenance>This relates to one location. This relates to the other location.</provenance>
  </physDesc>
  <physLoc>
    <repository>some archive. some other archive</repository>
  </physLoc>
</source>



--

p.

__________________________
Perry Roland
Music Library
University of Virginia
P. O. Box 400175
Charlottesville, VA 22904
434-982-2702 (w)
pdr4h (at) virginia (dot) edu
________________________________
From: mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de [mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de] on behalf of Axel Teich Geertinger [atge at kb.dk]
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 5:59 AM
To: Music Encoding Initiative
Subject: Re: [MEI-L] physLoc

Hi Perry,

to get back to the physLoc question: you wrote

does the provenance information pertain to only the copy in the first physical location or to both?  If it pertains to both, then the <provenance> elemement shouldn't be a child of the first <physLoc>, but should exist outside it.  Assuming <provenance> is permitted only within <physLoc>, if I want to say that both copies have always been kept together, then information will have to be repeated.  For example,

<source>
  <physDesc/>
  <physLoc>
    <provenance>Always together</provenance>
  </physLoc>
  <physLoc>
    <provenance>Always together</provenance>
  </physLoc>
</source>

I see that this would require information to be repeated. However, I think usually the situation would rather be that items in different physical locations (typically copies kept in different archives) would have different provenance. How would you describe that? You would have something like:

<source>
  <physDesc>
    <provenance>This relates to one location</provenance>
    <provenance>This relates to the other location</provenance>
  </physDesc>
  <physLoc>
    <repository>some archive</repository>
  </physLoc>
  <physLoc>
    <repository>some other archive</repository>
  </physLoc>
</source>

With <physLoc> and <provenance> separated, you would have to use IDREFs to clarify which provenance is related to which location (or item), right? Is that better than repeating information or using someting like @sameas in those (rare, I would say) cases, where several items in _different_ locations (or with different shelf marks) share the same provenance?

Have a nice weekend,
Axel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.uni-paderborn.de/pipermail/mei-l/attachments/20121208/af2dd205/attachment.html>