[MEI-L] history of sources / items

[Roland, Perry D. (pdr4h)]

Johannes,

Sorry for arriving late to the party.  :-)

The <history> element wasn't provided in source (manifestation) and item in order to encourage the use of work/history or expression/history.  The assumption was that what folks often have to say about a manifestation or item is really about the work and expression anyway.

A notesStmt/annot element (perhaps with a label of "history" in this case) can be used as a "catch all" to capture any information not easily shoe-horned into the other available elements in work, expression, source, and item.  But, since the models of source and item are essentially lists of optional children, it's also not difficult to add <history> in all these places without creating any backwards compatibility problems.  Before doing so, however, I'd like to know more about what you'd like to say about source and/or item history that makes this necessary.

I'm not in favor of moving <provenance> inside <history> because doing this would mean breaking compatibility.  It would also make provenance available inside work, expression, and source (e.g., work/history/provenance) where its presence could lead to abuse.  What exactly is the provenance (that is, the custodial history) of a work or expression?  I don't there is such a thing.

I don't understand what problem you're having with <bibl> inside <source>.  Are you looking to provide bibliographic citations for whatever arguments you present in <history>?  I need more information, please.

--
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 [mei-l-bounces+pdr4h=virginia.edu at lists.uni-paderborn.de] on behalf of Johannes Kepper [kepper at edirom.de]
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 5:16 AM
To: Music Encoding Initiative
Subject: Re: [MEI-L] history of sources / items

I was hoping to get a reply from Perry, especially since I think this dates back to the days before FRBR, when there were work and source elements. expression and item just inherited their standard models with little modifications, so I'm not surprised about their behavior.

However, I also prefer to add a history element to source and item, and moving provenance in there seems like a logical modification then. I wouldn't worry too much about backward compatibility. I think we're past the point where we'd have to make huge changes to the model, and little modifications should require only little modifications in software. Also, providing a XSLT to go back and forth between MEI2013 and MEI201x is not an issue, so that people could use whatever is most appropriate to them. This might result in putting the history somewhere nested into a notesStmt when going back to 2013, but so be it…

I remember discussions about structured vs. prose-based content models for a number of elements, among them bibl and annot. Does this relate to the initial question, and should we revise it as well?


Johannes
Ceterum censeo, don't forget to discuss the MEI organization, either here on MEI-L or at http://bit.ly/1hDyq4X.



Am 03.04.2014 um 02:50 schrieb Eleanor Selfridge-Field <esfield at stanford.edu>:

> "Provenance" is a standard item in catalogues of works in manuscript, but
> it has a range of meanings, all of which might comfortable fit within
> "history".  It sometimes identifies previously owners but equally often it
> refers to a physical location (city, institution, performing group et
> al.).
>
> Eleanor
>
> Eleanor Selfridge-Field
> Consulting Professor, Music (and, by courtesy, Symbolic Systems)
> Braun Music Center #129
> Stanford University
> Stanford, CA 94305-3076, USA
> http://www.stanford.edu/~esfield/  +1/ 650 725-9242
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mei-l [mailto:mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de] On Behalf Of
> Johannes Kepper
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 2:39 AM
> To: Music Encoding Initiative
> Subject: [MEI-L] history of sources / items
>
> Dear list,
>
> while discussing the upcoming Weber Werkverzeichnis (Weber's work
> catalogue) with Kristina Richts and Joachim Veit, I can't remember why we
> dropped the <history> element from sources and items? We have it on works
> and expressions, but not on these two. However, it might be interested to
> write something about the creation of a source (which is not the same as
> the provenance, which is available). Can someone please remind me of our
> argument to drop it? Otherwise, it would be a fault that we might want to
> correct.
>
> Btw., <bibl> seems to be equally hidden (you can get it from source at
> source/physDesc/physMedium/bibl.).
>
> Best,
> Johannes
>
> _______________________________________________
> mei-l mailing list
> mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
> https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-l