decoNote @type

[holfordm]

decoNote/@type:
diagrams to 'diagram' -- OK

borderInitials, initial_border -- these are for when I have one decoNote with a short note on all the ms decoration, e.g. "Border, initials", and I want to record both types. Separating the types with underscore seems like the best approach?

frieze: no comment, don't think I use.
paratext, printmark, secondary, unspecified or uwan - don't think I use. Would be careful of normalizing, some of these sound meaningful.

[jamescummings]

The numbers at the time of writing the report were:

type (690) ="border (20) | bordersInitials (1) | decoration (71) | diagram (23) | diagrams (1) | frieze (1) | illustration (91) | initial (51) | initial_border (1) | initials (9) | marginal (6) | marginalSketches (1) | micrography (23) | miniature (7) | other (66) | paratext (1) | printmark (1) | rubrication (184) | secondary (2) | unspecified (59) | unwan (71) "

So paratext/printmark/secondary are a total of 4 notes in all oxford collections... I thought standardisation might be better. I've changed it so unwan goes through.

re: underscore; so we have border, bordersInitials, initial, initial_border and initials. I would have said when the decoNote is a general note, not on a specific aspect of the decoration, then don't classify it at all. i.e. get rid of bordersInitials and inital_border entirely. But yes, we could standardise to some combined form if you prefer.

[holfordm]

Let's use initial_border for combined forms with the principal being that if there is more tha one type of decoration, the different types are separated by underscore. I haven't classified decoration in detail yet, and probably won't have the time, but I would like to set things up so that the material we have can at some future point be classified along these lines.

…

________________________________ From: James Cummings <notifications@github.com> Sent: 27 April 2017 11:28 To: bodleian/tei-tolkien Cc: holfordm; Author Subject: Re: [bodleian/tei-tolkien] decoNote @type (#4) The numbers at the time of writing the report were: type (690) ="border (20) | bordersInitials (1) | decoration (71) | diagram (23) | diagrams (1) | frieze (1) | illustration (91) | initial (51) | initial_border (1) | initials (9) | marginal (6) | marginalSketches (1) | micrography (23) | miniature (7) | other (66) | paratext (1) | printmark (1) | rubrication (184) | secondary (2) | unspecified (59) | unwan (71) " So paratext/printmark/secondary are a total of 4 notes in all oxford collections... I thought standardisation might be better. I've changed it so unwan goes through. re: underscore; so we have border, bordersInitials, initial, initial_border and initials. I would have said when the decoNote is a general note, not on a specific aspect of the decoration, then don't classify it at all. i.e. get rid of bordersInitials and inital_border entirely. But yes, we could standardise to some combined form if you prefer. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#4 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ATThVHpkfNPtisku_V3MBngLEhu8yxBOks5r0HvpgaJpZM4NKEYL>.

[jamescummings]

I believe this is done, so I'm closing it. re-open if it is still a problem.