> I think there may be cases when a complete codex is the result of copying another complete codex but to my knowledge it will be almost impossible to know if that was the case so I would assume that each codex is a unique material package of unique material manuscripts (carrying possibly the same text as other manuscripts).
Dear Robert, Thank you for this. I have no knowledge in codices, so I am also a layman :)) My questions (and possibly Christian-Emil"s) relate to potential links that could exist in your data, or in other institutions' data, links between concepts or between objects, or events etc., and therefore would need to be modelled. Well, this may actually be a broader discussion, but I think in general we should always try to model not only in a way that allows for an exact mapping of our data but also for people in the same field who may have a different approach and use different concepts, because perhaps they have objects in their collections that require the use of these concepts in order to be described properly. When we know about these different approaches it is always nice to add them in the model, generally it is just a matter of a few supplementary properties. Or maybe, it is not a matter of other institutions but of considering all possibilities. When you say, regarding multiple versions of a codex, that this is usually not the case , maybe the model should consider the possibility that this might exceptionally happen? (I don't know if this is a good example, but you get the idea). With all very best wishes, Pierre NB: And yes, you are absolutely right regarding the expressions incorporating the contents of the manuscripts (the words written on the paper), this is what was meant. On Fri 27 Oct 2017 at 18:06 Robert Casties < Robert Casties ( Robert Casties <[email protected]> ) > wrote: > > > > Dear Pierre, > > > > On 27.10.17 17:21, Florian Kräutli wrote: > > Begin forwarded message: > > > >> *From: *Pierre Choffé < [email protected] > >> *Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling bound manuscript copies* > >> > >> 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: > >> > >> 1. the codices we are talking about are collections of manuscripts > > This is correct. > > >> 2. there can be multiple versions of the same codex > > I think this is usually not the case. There was a misunderstanding when > I tried to explain the situation to Florian ;-) > > >> 3. there can exist other codices incorporating either part of, or all > >> of the manuscripts plus other manuscripts, thus differentiating > >> themselves from the above > > This is also correct if you mean the contents of the manuscripts (the > words written on the paper). The physical manuscripts as pieces of paper > will of course only be part of one codex (at one time). > > >> 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). > > This sounds ok to me (but I know very little CRM). > > In practice it would be very hard to know if something is an original > manuscript or a copy although in our case it would almost always be a > copy. It would be nice if we could get away without having to specify if > something happens to be an autograph or not. > > >> 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? > > I am a layperson concerning CRM as I said and this sounds good to me. > > In our project we are not so much interested in each individual > manuscript and its history and its differences to other copies of the > same text as other edition projects. Our criteria as to what counts as > manifestations of the same expression may be different from others'. > > Thanks > Robert > > > >> On Fri 27 Oct 2017 at 09:45 "Florian Kräutli" <">"Florian Kräutli" > >> > 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] ( > [email protected] ) > > >>> 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] ( > [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] ( [email protected] ) >> > on behalf of Florian > >> Kräutli < [email protected] > >> < mailto:[email protected] ( [email protected] ) > >> > >> *Sent:* 26 October 2017 15:27 > >> *To:* [email protected] < mailto:[email protected] ( > [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 > ) > >> > >> Best wishes, > >> > >> Florian > >> > >> > > > > > -- > Dr. Robert Casties -- Information Technology Group > Max Planck Institute for the History of Science > Boltzmannstr. 22, D-14195 Berlin > Tel: +49/30/22667-342 Fax: -299 > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > > > >
