Great! I think we can work with that. I'll let you know how we proceed. Thank you both for your help!
Florian > On 27. Oct 2017, at 11:37, Pierre Choffé <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yes, a P46_is_composed_of could link the F5 (codex) to its parts F5 > (manuscripts). > > Pierre > > On Fri 27 Oct 2017 at 11:28 "Florian Kräutli" <">"Florian Kräutli" > <mailto:>> wrote: > 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] > <mailto:[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
