Hi! I think that, as a standard for cataloguing considering this well-spotted by Dominik difference between "work" and "manuscript", one can use FaBiO, the FRBR-aligned Bibliographic Ontology (see [1]), which is based upon Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records approach (see [2]).
This approach differentiates between four "entities": 1. *Work*, which is the intellectual or artistic creation, on an abstract, conceptual level; this entity is referred usually as "I have read Bhagavad-Gita!" without reference to editor, edition, physical or digital format, etc. 2. *Expression*, which is another abstract entity, involving the realization of an work as text or audiobook, or in another language. 3. *Manifestation*, which is the "physical embodiment of an expression of a work" [2]. 4. *Item*, which is an "exemplar of a *manifestation*" [2], a physical or digital object. An example from [2], about the work *Gone with the Wind*: [image: image.png] Best regards, Claudius Teodorescu [1] https://sparontologies.github.io/fabio/current/fabio.html [2] https://loc.gov/cds/downloads/FRBR.PDF On Sun, 28 Jul 2024 at 03:21, Harry Spier via INDOLOGY < [email protected]> wrote: > Dominik has as usual identified the central issue, should a manuscript > catalogue describe "works" or "manuscripts". > > But a more complicated related question (and the reason I asked my > original question) is "what should be in the catalog descriptions of > on-line sanskrit etext collections?". Is it even possible to come up with > a standard for this, and would it be useful? There is SARIT, GRETIL, > Muktabodha, Digital Corpus of Sanskrit, TITUS and others online. So what > should be the standards for cataloguing these. What to put in their > headers. This is of course complicated because some of the etexts in these > collections are manuscripts and some are copies of published editions > (works). Several collections including Muktabodha contain both published > editions and manuscripts. . > > Should such a catalog be directed towards experts (i.e. assume they know > the work) or should there be information useful to people who are less than > expert (information about the work). To give a trivial example. The > Muktabodha digital library contains the Bhagavadgītā with the commentary of > Abhinavagupta edited by Lakshman Joo. This is the Kashmiri recension of the > Bhagavadgita. Should a catalog entry for this etext just say its the > Kashmiri recension (sufficient information for knowledgeable people) or > should a catalog entry for this etext explain in brief the differences > between the vulgate and the Kashmiri recension (useful to students less > than expert in the Bhagavadgita) who may have come across this in their > internet searchs. > > Thanks, > Harry Spier > > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2024 at 5:20 AM Dominik Wujastyk <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I have always admired Chandrabhal Tripathi's catalogue of the Strasbourg >> Jain MSS as a model. >> >> - Tripāṭhī, Chandrabhāl. 1975. Catalogue of the Jaina Manuscripts at >> Strasbourg, Indologia Berolinensis ; Bd. 4 (Leiden: E. J. Brill) >> >> There's a big issue at the heart of your question. Does a catalogue >> describe *works* or *manuscripts*? >> >> Almost all catalogues of Indian MSS describe works. That is to say, >> there's a tacit assumption that a manuscript carries a work. So we say "a >> manuscript of the Bhagavadgītā". This gets cataloguers into difficulties >> when a manuscript supports many works. It also leads to the suppression of >> non-work materials such as marginalia, glosses, scribal verses and so on. >> >> The usage of European classicists and medievalists is more evolved, and >> is the opposite. All major catalogues of Western manuscripts describe >> *manuscripts*. A typical entry begins with the physical description and >> then continues with a folio-by-folio description of what is written on the >> pages. Finally, there will be references and bibliography. To find >> *works* in such a catalogue, you consult an index. >> Some examples: >> >> - >> https://archive.org/details/medievalmanuscri0001kern/page/280/mode/1up >> (Neil Ker) >> - >> https://archive.org/details/catalogueofdated0001brit/page/46/mode/1up >> (Andrew Watson) >> - >> https://archive.org/details/westernmanuscrip0001trin/page/257/mode/1up >> - >> https://archive.org/details/b30455881_0001/page/72/mode/1up?view=theater >> - https://archive.org/details/descriptivecata00univ/page/176/mode/1up >> - https://archive.org/details/descriptivecata00univ/page/355/mode/1up >> (index) >> >> The second, manuscript-oriented, procedure has more practical and >> intellectual advantages than I can list right now. >> >> After the war, the great V. Raghavan designed a spreadsheet-like scheme >> for handlisting manuscripts and finagled funding to pay for catalogues that >> followed that scheme. That's all still in place today. So we have a >> century of Indian cataloguing based on a mistaken concept of *what it is >> that gets catalogued*. >> >> I wrote a bit about this in my 2013 article, pp. 169 ff. and esp. 172 >> ff. See attached. >> >> Dominik >> >> > _______________________________________________ > INDOLOGY mailing list > [email protected] > https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology > -- Cu stimă, Claudius Teodorescu
_______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing list [email protected] https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
