Happy to help (and I hope Christian-Emil agrees !) I’d be interested to see the final result :) Have a nice day, Pierre
On Fri 27 Oct 2017 at 11:39 "Florian Kräutli" < ">"Florian Kräutli" > wrote: > > 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 < choffepie...@gmail.com > 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" > > 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 >>> >> >> > >
