[MEI-L] history of sources / items

Joachim Veit veit at weber-gesamtausgabe.de
Thu Apr 3 21:32:26 CEST 2014 

Dear Perry,
thank you very much for these details and <annot type="naive">excuse my 
misunderstanding of the possibilities of "annotation"</annot>!!
Indeed your proposal to transfer the possibiliies of <annot> to 
<history> would be excellent in my eyes because - at least in our case - 
the history will be so detailed that <annot> seems to be semantically 
inadequate (at least if we consent that the content of an essay should 
not be hidden in the footnotes but in the main text...;-) ).
And with <div> we should have the opportunity to squeeze al things in 
which are hidden in the 27 corners of our project...
Waiting for the discussion with Kristina and Johannes tomorrow,
meanwhile with cordial thanks and best greetings,
Joachim


Am 03.04.14 17:59, schrieb Roland, Perry D. (pdr4h):
> Johannes and Joachim,
>
>> Sometimes you have a copy, and you would like to tell the story behind it – why it has been copied, under which conditions it happened, etc. Basically, I want to get hold of <creation> for source (and maybe item, even though I think this might be less important). Of course, people may confuse the histories of works and sources, but this doesn't explain why there shouldn't be a source history in MEI…
> I understand your motivation better, but <creation> is not the thing you're looking for (ala Obi-wan Kenobi).  <creation> is intended to hold a *brief* statement of the circumstances of creation.  That's why it's content model is very restrictive:
>
> <rng:zeroOrMore>
>    <rng:choice>
>      <rng:text/>
>      <rng:ref name="date"/>
>      <rng:ref name="geogName"/>
>    </rng:choice>
> </rng:zeroOrMore>
>
> It's nothing more than a string with <date> and <geogName> thrown in to capture important dates and places.  You could think of <creation> as the "quick and dirty" or "headline" version of the content that follows it.
>
> For more "essay-like" content, you can use the other possible children of history; i.e., eventList and p.
>
> <rng:optional>
>    <rng:ref name="model.headLike"/>
> </rng:optional>
> <rng:optional>
>    <rng:ref name="creation"/>
> </rng:optional>
> <rng:zeroOrMore>
>    <rng:choice>
>      <rng:ref name="eventList"/>
>      <rng:ref name="p"/>
>    </rng:choice>
> </rng:zeroOrMore>
>
> But contrary to what Joachim said, the most "book-like" and least restrictive model is actually that of <annot>:
>
> <rng:zeroOrMore>
>    <rng:choice>
>      <rng:text/>
>      <rng:ref name="model.textcomponentLike"/>
>      <rng:ref name="model.textphraseLike"/>
>      <rng:ref name="model.editLike"/>
>      <rng:ref name="model.transcriptionLike"/>
>    </rng:choice>
> </rng:zeroOrMore>
>
> This allows just about everything under the sun!
>
> On the issue of <history>, what I hear you saying is that you'd like its content model to be more like that of <annot>, something like:
>
> <rng:optional>
>    <rng:ref name="model.headLike"/>
> </rng:optional>
> <rng:optional>
>    <rng:ref name="creation"/>
> </rng:optional>
> <rng:zeroOrMore>
>    <rng:choice>
>      <rng:ref name="model.textcomponentLike"/>
>    </rng:choice>
> </rng:zeroOrMore>
>
> where the members of model.textcomponentLike are:
>
> lgLike - lg
> listLike - biblList, eventList, list
> pLike -p
> quoteLike - quote
> tableLike - table
>
> or perhaps
>
> <rng:optional>
>    <rng:ref name="model.headLike"/>
> </rng:optional>
> <rng:optional>
>    <rng:ref name="creation"/>
> </rng:optional>
> <rng:zeroOrMore>
>    <rng:ref name="model.divLike"/>
> </rng:zeroOrMore>
>
> where the membership of model.divLike is just <div> and members of model.divLike and model.textcomponentLike are permitted as content of <div>
>
> or
>
> <rng:optional>
>    <rng:ref name="model.headLike"/>
> </rng:optional>
> <rng:optional>
>    <rng:ref name="creation"/>
> </rng:optional>
> <rng:zeroOrMore>
>    <rng:choice>
>      <rng:ref name="model.divLike"/>
>      <rng:ref name="model.textcomponentLike"/>
>    </rng:choice>
> </rng:zeroOrMore>
>
> making <history> into a more div-Like container that can wrap other components and divs (which is how you can get section headings).
>
> These modifications will also address your need to include a list of bibliographic citations within <history>.
>
> Going farther, we could even drop <creation> from <history>, moving any content in former versions of MEI to subordinate <p> elements.  This would eliminate the privileging of data-like uses of <creation>.
>
>> I still think that <history> might be a better parent for <provenance> than <physDesc>. We agree that the provenance of an item is not part of the physical description, do we? I'm not saying we must move it to history, but I wonder if we could, possibly with additional means to prevent it from showing up on work and expression…
> <physDesc> was a convenient place to locate <provenance> since in library land, as Joachim confirms, "provenance> often has clear connections with <physDesc> because stamps and librarian's or auctioneer's entries are often mentioned in this context."  But there's no reason why it should remain there if there's a compelling reason to move it.
>
> We could move <provenance> up a level into <item> itself rather than placing it inside <history> and then making <history> available inside <item>.  Taking this approach would put <provenance> where it needs to be (on <item>) and not everywhere <history> can occur; that is, <work>, <expression>, and <source> (should we decide to allow <history> there too).  It also maintains separation between the history of "handing down" (quoting Joachim) of the item and the production history of the item, which is the proper content for <item>/<history>.
>
> Does this help?
>
> --
> 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 at lists.uni-paderborn.de] on behalf of Johannes Kepper [kepper at edirom.de]
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 9:26 AM
> To: Music Encoding Initiative
> Subject: Re: [MEI-L] history of sources / items
>
> Am 03.04.2014 um 15:10 schrieb Roland, Perry D. (pdr4h) <pdr4h at eservices.virginia.edu>:
>
>> 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.
> Sometimes you have a copy, and you would like to tell the story behind it – why it has been copied, under which conditions it happened, etc. Basically, I want to get hold of <creation> for source (and maybe item, even though I think this might be less important). Of course, people may confuse the histories of works and sources, but this doesn't explain why there shouldn't be a source history in MEI…
>
>> 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.
> Well, I see your point, and I agree with that. There is certainly no provenance of a work or expression. The kind of information someone would be looking for is about the transmission of the work, which should go into history. However, I still think that <history> might be a better parent for <provenance> than <physDesc>. We agree that the provenance of an item is not part of the physical description, do we? I'm not saying we must move it to history, but I wonder if we could, possibly with additional means to prevent it from showing up on work and expression…
>
>> 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.
> I have no problem with bibl inside source, except that it isn't allowed. I'd like to be able to put in literature about a specific source (like a review of a printed edition etc.), that's it. The current means to get a bibl into source seem to be too complicated…
>
> Hth,
> Johannes
> Ceterum censeo, don't forget to discuss the MEI organization, either here on MEI-L or at http://bit.ly/1hDyq4X.
>
>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 Bin?rdaten wurde abgetrennt...
Dateiname   : veit.vcf
Dateityp    : text/x-vcard
Dateigr??e  : 364 bytes
Beschreibung: nicht verf?gbar
URL         : <http://lists.uni-paderborn.de/pipermail/mei-l/attachments/20140403/02222bbf/attachment.vcf>

More information about the mei-l mailing list