Use allowed values for "bibl@type"

[wrznr]

http://dfg-viewer.de/strukturdatenset/ has to be mapped onto http://deutschestextarchiv.de/doku/basisformat/mdSdBibl.html

[wrznr]

@cthomasdta FYI

[bertsky]

An exhaustive list of tags can be found in Kitodo.Production BTW.

[cthomasdta]

+ for DTABf-M we would like to have (additional to manuscript/MAN) things like

• draft / Entwurf(shandschrift)
• concept / Konzept
• fair copy / Reinschrift
• diary / Tagebuch (also a category of printed publications, of course)
• etc.

I think this would be the right place in the header for that kind of categorisation, right?

[bertsky]

Thanks @cthomasdta for bringing up this additional case! I did not notice it before but it is in the schema already – perhaps the documentation website should be updated?

We already have manuscript in Strukturdatenset for METS divs, but I wonder where (at what place in the representation) your subcategories would go. Do we have an analogue to that in the existing types?

[cthomasdta]

Thanks @cthomasdta for bringing up this additional case! I did not notice it before but it is in the schema already – perhaps the documentation website should be updated?

Yes, you are right, <bibl type="MAN"> is missing in the DTABf docu here, but it is given in the overview of header elements here.

We already have manuscript in Strukturdatenset for METS divs, but I wonder where (at what place in the representation) your subcategories would go. Do we have an analogue to that in the existing types?

I will think about this (esp. if these are subcategories indeed) and try to find examples.

P.S. I see now, we also have to differentiate between prints and manuscripts, where the header info goes:

• prints: //fileDesc/sourceDesc/bibl
• manuscripts: //fileDesc/sourceDesc/msDesc -- I would place "draft", "concept", "fair copy", "diary" etc. here.

[bertsky]

• manuscripts: //fileDesc/sourceDesc/msDesc -- I would place "draft", "concept", "fair copy", "diary" etc. here.

You mean as in

<msDesc>
  <physDesc>
    <typeDesc>
      <p>diary</p>
    </typeDesc>
  </physDesc>
</msDesc>

?

Are you sure that bibl is exclusively used for print? IIUC msDesc (in TEI literally (manuscript description) contains a description of a single identifiable manuscript or other text-bearing object such as early printed books.) only describes the original written form of the work. But if the work has not been printed or there is no earlier written exemplar for it, then this should be kept empty.

[cthomasdta]

No, I did mean //fileDesc/sourceDesc/msDesc, cf. these two examples from edition humboldt digital, where alle 500+ other docs are encoded accordingly -- and hopefully not wrong:

• https://edition-humboldt.de/H0000608.xml
• https://edition-humboldt.de/H0002731.xml

Here, we use @rend instead of @type, for reasons I cannot remember at the moment, but this is not our issue here.

= //fileDesc/sourceDesc/msDesc[@rend='manuscript'], other values are:

• "notExtant" | Erschlossen
• "concept" | Entwurf
• "manuscript" | Manuskript
• "copy" | Abschrift
• "fragment" | Fragment
• "print" | Druck (e.g. sth. originally printed, but with handwritten notes by our author, therefore treated as a manuscript.)

[bertsky]

Here, we use @rend instead of @type, for reasons I cannot remember at the moment, but this is not our issue here.

= //fileDesc/sourceDesc/msDesc[@rend='manuscript'], other values are:

understood. So in your examples, bibl type="MAN" is still missing, and in the DTABf documentation (website), msDesc/@rend is.

Also, perhaps msDesc/@rend should be restricted by the schema to a set of allowable values (from the Strukturdatenset).

I can find manuscript and fragment in Strukturdatenset, but not the other values. So should the METS Anwendungsprofil be extended for manuscripts accordingly? (You don't seem to offer METS on edition-humboldt, so perhaps we should consider this a case of #61. You don't happen to know how DTABf relates to the TEI Anwendungsprofil?)

[cthomasdta]

[…]
(You don't seem to offer METS on edition-humboldt, so perhaps we should consider this a case of #61.

As far as I understand issue 61, yes. That:

You don't happen to know how DTABf relates to the TEI Anwendungsprofil?)

I do not know, sorry. Maybe @tboenig does?

[tboenig]

@cthomasdta @bertsky At the moment, the application profile (TEI Anwendungsprofil für Handschriften) has not been defined or adopted in DTABf.

[bertsky]

At the moment, the application profile (TEI Anwendungsprofil für Handschriften) has not been defined or adopted in DTABf.

@tboenig yes, but how does it relate (conceptually)? Among the many conventions outlined by DTABf, how many does it have in common with TEI Anwendungsprofil?