Conversation
… Bǝʾǝsi type miracles of Mary
| <teiHeader> | ||
| <fileDesc> | ||
| <titleStmt> | ||
| <title>A stanza corresponding to the mircale of the Caliph of Atrib</title> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is rather a description and should be encoded as abstract. For the title, I suggest "Miracle of the Caliph of Atrib". What do you mean with "corresponding"? Why not "Stanza about the miracle of the Caliph of Atrib"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"Stanza on..." or "Stanza of...". NAs are not works, perhaps it is not necessary that their title imitate tose of the proper literary works. But the titles of NA should also be rather short and transparent. Lengthy explanations should be put elsewhere (I assume you can use <abstract><p/> for that). Also you can use the relations. ("ecrm:P129_is_about", "saws:isDifferentTo"). If the stanzas are short, I would advice to transcribe it, and add incipits in any case (can be very helpful as the explanations always remain abstract).
| <teiHeader> | ||
| <fileDesc> | ||
| <titleStmt> | ||
| <title>A stanza in the Māḫleta Ṣ́ǝge appears to be identical as the stanza corresponding to the thirsty dog of the ʾAkkonu Bǝʾǝsi thirty-second miracle </title> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Again the title should be rather short. This phrase can be encoded as abstract. For the title I would suggest "Miracle of the thirsty dog" or "On the thirsty dog".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@CarstenHoffmannMarburg Thank you for your suggestion, especially your idea of adding a description to the abstract is absolutely important, as far as the title is concerned however seems does not work. it is neither the miracle of the Caliph of Atrib nor the miracle of the thirsty dog making the confusion they are the two stanzas appearing in two texts i.e. the stanza identified as 'LIT5059TaammeraFeqreki' is part of the ʾAkkonu Bǝʾǝsi and Maḫleta Ṣ́ǝge stanzas at the same time and similarly the stanza identified as 'AkkSta32' is part of the ʾAkkonu Bǝʾǝsi and the Tafaśśǝḥi Māryām La ʾAddām Fāsikāhu stanzas at the same time.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think you need to describe very explicitly what is in the text and what are the similarities and quotations from other texts. Otherwise any users will be confused about it, like I am. In any way, I think the word "corresponding to" does not fit what you want to see. Isn't it better to have "including a stanza, that is also cited in ..."? Or is it like that the entire text, that you found is included in ʾAkkonu Bǝʾǝsi or Maḫleta Ṣ́ǝge. In that case it should be described as a textpart of these works and encoded with the existing IDs as "incomplete" and described as a quotation.
| <teiHeader> | ||
| <fileDesc> | ||
| <titleStmt> | ||
| <title>A stanza corresponding to the mircale of the Caliph of Atrib</title> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"Stanza on..." or "Stanza of...". NAs are not works, perhaps it is not necessary that their title imitate tose of the proper literary works. But the titles of NA should also be rather short and transparent. Lengthy explanations should be put elsewhere (I assume you can use <abstract><p/> for that). Also you can use the relations. ("ecrm:P129_is_about", "saws:isDifferentTo"). If the stanzas are short, I would advice to transcribe it, and add incipits in any case (can be very helpful as the explanations always remain abstract).
|
Dear Guesh, please look through the commentaries above again, check if you complied with the request or responded to them, and we will close this. After a long discussion with Dorothea, we came to the conclusion that it is very important to understand what NAs are for. This is not quite clear from the Guidelines and the examples presented there. NAs do not stand for text parts of the works (which are encoded through <title ref= the main ID# definition of the part), in this sense they are not units of text. They are used to mark "parts of the narrative", i.e. non-textual units of the story, of whatever type (though it is not always a proper "story") that can be realized in texts, related or unrelated. In a way, they are somewhat similar to "general records", or "dossiers" for hagiographic texts. NAs are primarily a research tool, not essentual for manuscript description. In the nearest future we hope we will be able to improve the Guidelines on that point. |
|
Dear all,
Thank you for your remarks and will edit the issue accordingly. However
it's unfortunate that currently I can't edit an XML task with my pc (having
some tentative technical issue). I'm in Lindon now and will solve the issue
as soon as I come back, after four days. Since no internet connection is
alliwed in the British Library reading rooms, I'm receiving your emails in
the evenings that's why I'm too late to reply.
Thank you for your understanding.
Guesh
…On Tue, 8 Aug 2023, 11:20 DenisNosnitsin1970, ***@***.***> wrote:
Dear Guesh, please look through the commentaries above again, check if you
complied with the request or responded to them, and we will close this.
After a long discussion with Dorothea, we came to the conclusion that it is
very important to understand what NAs are for. This is not quite clear from
the Guidelines and the examples presented there. NAs do not stand for text
parts of the works (which are encoded through <title ref= the main ID#
definition of the part), in this sense they are not units of text. They are
used to mark "parts of the narrative", i.e. non-textual units of the story,
of whatever type (though it is not always a proper "story") that can be
realized in texts, related or unrelated. In a way, they are somewhat
similar to "general records", or "dossiers" for hagiographic texts. NAs are
primarily a research tool, not essentual for manuscript description. In the
nearest future we hope we will be able to improve the Guidelines on that
point.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#25 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AWGOX4YQK2XYYNC3CX6AYL3XUIHFPANCNFSM6AAAAAA2NEFQ7A>
.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
4 participants
No description provided.