Dear Pierre, many thanks for this! I think seeing this as two processes makes sense.
I sketched your description as I was reading along: https://photos.app.goo.gl/Xhd6yxZEpQldwqHK2 <https://photos.app.goo.gl/Xhd6yxZEpQldwqHK2> Is that correct? The part where we struggled in our own scheme is the relation between the physical instance of the codex and the physical copies of the manuscripts that are bound within them. Through the relation between the expression of the F17 and the expressions of the original manuscript, the relation on the content level is clear. But how can we make the relation between material copies (the ? link in the diagram). Now that I look at it, should the F22 of the F17 incorporate the F24 Publication Expression of the copy of the original manuscript? I guess that would make the connection between a specific physical copy and the codex. All best, Florian > On 27. Oct 2017, at 11:01, Pierre Choffé <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Dear Florian, dear Christian-Emil, > > I hope this finds you well. Just a few words about this interesting > discussion if I may. If I understand well: > the codices we are talking about are collections of manuscripts > there can be multiple versions of the same codex > there can exist other codices incorporating either part of, or all of the > manuscripts plus other manuscripts, thus differentiating themselves from the > above > am I wrong if I say we have 2 “industrial" production processes, one of > manuscripts on the one hand, and one of codices on the other hand? These > should be described separately. > > It starts off simple: we have an author creating a Work (F15) realising an > Expression (F22), and an original manuscript (F4 Manifestation Singleton) > carrying the Expression. > > Then at some point we have copies of the original manuscript. This is the > first industrial process, resulting in the production of F5 Items (new > manuscripts) R6 carrying a F24 Publication Expression, itself P165 > incorporating the original F22 Self-Contained Expression (or not, or not > exactly, but this is another discussion). > > The second one is more complex. Being a “collection”, I would suggest that > the codex is an F17 Aggregation Work (subclass of F14 and F16), which > realises an F22 Self-Contained Expression (the expression of the collection) > which itself P165_incorporates as many F22 as there are manuscripts. Note > that a manuscript is a carrier, so it can carry one or multiple Expressions > (e.g. poems). > > There we have a second industrial process resulting in the production of F5 > Items (the codices) R6 carrying a F24 Publication Expression, itself P165 > incorporating the original F22 Self-Contained Expression (the expression of > the collection). > > If I have time I will try to make a schema, but I hope this is clear (and > correct!). > > I am sure there are complex cases, where the same manuscript can be found in > completely different codices, or where manuscripts differ, etc. but I think > this modelling allows for describing all sorts of situations. Or not? > > Have a nice day, > > Pierre > > On Fri 27 Oct 2017 at 09:45 "Florian Kräutli" <">"Florian Kräutli" > <mailto:>> wrote: > Dear Christian-Emil, > > Thanks for your reply. I will check back on this, but as far as I understood, > the manuscripts in a codex have been purposely bound together. There can > exist several codices with the same arrangement of manuscripts. > > I think in this context we could see the manuscripts a result of an > industrial production. They are manual copies, hence are not unique in the > way that I understand a F4 Manifestation Singleton to be unique (both > intellectually and physically) > > > Best wishes, > > Florian > >> _______________________________________________ >> Crm-sig mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >> <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig> >> > > On 26. Oct 2017, at 19:29, Christian-Emil Smith Ore <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > A small question about a codex containing several manuscripts: Is there any > relationship between the manuscripts (that is, the text they carry) or is it > simply a handy way to handle several manuscripts? The latter is the case for > some Nordic Medieval codices where the codix is simply a batch of non related > texts. > > In the recent CRM SIG meeting it was a long dicussion if a manuscript could > be seen as a result of a (production) plan and thus should be an item of an > F3 Manifestation Product Type. If so what is the Manifestation Singleton > realising the original expression of the codex manuscript. Would you claim > that the codices are a result of an idustrial production, mutatis mutandis? > > Best, > Christian-Emil > From: Crm-sig <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Florian Kräutli > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Sent: 26 October 2017 15:27 > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: [Crm-sig] Modelling bound manuscript copies > > Dear all, > > We're working on a CIDOC-CRM/FRBRoo model to represent a collection of > Islamic manuscripts > > It is organised into Codices. Further we have the concepts of Witness and > Text. A Witness is a manuscript – a hand produced copy – of a Text. A Codex > contains several Witnesses bound together. > > A Codex can exist several times, similar to a copy of a book, and appear in > catalogues of other collections. However, the copies of the Codices are > hand-made, binding together several Witnesses. > > Our difficulty when modelling this comes due to the definition of F5 Item and > F4 Manifestation Singleton in FRBRoo. It would make sense to model our copy > of a Codex as an F5 Item, being an example of F3 Manifestation Product Type. > However, the scope note of F5 states that it is an object produced through an > industrial process, e.g. printing. The physical texts that are bound together > in a codex are however manual transcriptions. The definition of F4 > Manifestation Singletons for the Witnesses is however also not appropriate, > as we know several transcriptions of the same text exist. F5 Item would be > more appropriate for our Witnesses, but does it apply in our case? > > Another difficulty is when modelling the Codex as a binding together of > physical manuscripts and the texts they hold. Our direction is to model a > Codex as F15 Complex Work, that is realised in a F24 Publication Expression > carried by an E84 Information Carrier. The Texts are then F14 Individual Work > (as members of F15) realised in F22 Self-Contained Expression (as components > of F24). The Witnesses are E84 Information Carriers that carry said F22 and > P48 compose the E84 Information Carrier that carries the F24. We did not use > F4 or F5 here. Does this make sense? (See sketch: > https://oc.rz-berlin.mpg.de/owncloud/index.php/s/AXJLkRmv0E00ecM > <https://oc.rz-berlin.mpg.de/owncloud/index.php/s/AXJLkRmv0E00ecM>) > > Best wishes, > > Florian
