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" > 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 > > 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 < choffepie...@gmail.com > 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" > > 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 >>> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> On 26. Oct 2017, at 19:29, Christian-Emil Smith Ore < c.e.s....@iln.uio.no >> > 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 < crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr > on behalf of Florian >> Kräutli < fkraeu...@mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de > >> *Sent:* 26 October 2017 15:27 >> *To:* crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >> *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 >> > >
