Is it worth pointing our TEI colleagues towards how this is conceptualised in Spectrum, or object cataloguing standards like CCO?
For example, Spectrum<https://collectionstrust.org.uk/resource/object-description-information/> lists the following kinds of content that might be described for an object:
* Content - activity<https://collectionstrust.org.uk/resource/content-activity>
* Content - concept<https://collectionstrust.org.uk/resource/content-concept>
* Content - date<https://collectionstrust.org.uk/resource/content-date>
* Content - description<https://collectionstrust.org.uk/resource/content-description>
* Content - event name<https://collectionstrust.org.uk/resource/content-event-name>
o Content - event name type<https://collectionstrust.org.uk/resource/content-event-name-type>
* Content - language<https://collectionstrust.org.uk/resource/content-language>
* Content - note<https://collectionstrust.org.uk/resource/content-note>
* Content - object<https://collectionstrust.org.uk/resource/content-object>
o Content - object type<https://collectionstrust.org.uk/resource/content-object-type>
* Content - organisation<https://collectionstrust.org.uk/resource/content-organisation> (Org)
* Content - other<https://collectionstrust.org.uk/resource/content-other>
o Content - other type<https://collectionstrust.org.uk/resource/content-other-type>
* Content - people<https://collectionstrust.org.uk/resource/content-people> (Peo)
* Content - person<https://collectionstrust.org.uk/resource/content-person> (Per)
* Content - place<https://collectionstrust.org.uk/resource/content-place> (Pla)
* Content - position<https://collectionstrust.org.uk/resource/content-position>
* Content - script<https://collectionstrust.org.uk/resource/content-script>
Presumably, some of these map to existing TEI elements, and could be added to the list of possible children of an <objectContents> element. But, as noted in the email below, there's also a question about whether you might want to sub-divide the objects into different aspects/parts/components, each of which has a different content ...
Best wishes
Rupert
Rupert Shepherd, PhD FSA
Collection Information Manager
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Tel: +44 (0)20 7747 5921
Please note that I usually work from home on Fridays; calls to the number above should still reach me.
From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard Light
Sent: 25 July 2019 20:47
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [MCG] Fwd: Objectification: how to encode the contents of objects?
I'm sure that members of the MCG list will have views on the subject of how the content of objects should be recorded! As James suggests, the github issue is probably the best place to contribute to the discussion (though I would be happy to pass on any thoughts expressed on this list).
Best wishes,
Richard
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:
Objectification: how to encode the contents of objects?
Date:
Thu, 25 Jul 2019 16:08:33 +0000
From:
James Cummings <[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:
James Cummings <[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
To:
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Dear TEI-L,
The creation of the <object> element (and <listObject>, <objectName>, <objectIdentifier>) for describing physical objects was based very much on the <msDesc> element (this being a very specific type of object) in an earlier release. At the time of that release (3.5.0 in January 2019) some elements related to manuscript description were changed to add the phrase 'or other object' into their descriptions to enable their use inside the description of a non-manuscript (or even non-text-bearing) object. (Though, to be honest, TEI has long encouraged the use of manuscript description for other text-bearing objects of sufficient concern to have a detailed description, regardless of whether they are actually manuscripts.)
While some elements like <msIdentifier> were replaced by <objectIdentifier>, the <msContents> and <msItem> elements were kept (though with the 'or other object' in their descriptions) so that we could gather more opinions about what an <msContents> for physical objects should include. In many ways <msContents> act as a table-of-contents for the intellectual contents of a manuscript, so a similar element for objects would need to encode the same kind of information.
Some examples used in the Guidelines of objects included the Mask of Tutankhamun, the Alfred Jewel, Excalibur, etc. And one that I've been using to think about another issue is a building, the mosaic-covered Central Library at UNAM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Library_(UNAM).
Whatever this element might be called (<contents>? <objectContents>?) maybe only needs a list of <item>s inside it? Maybe there are better ways to describe the individual portions/sections/items of an object and their intellectual contents? In raising this issue https://github.com/TEIC/TEI/issues/1851 I wanted to involve others interested in the documentation of objects to comment (here or even better on the github issue) to get a wider range of viewpoints. So if you have any thoughts on describing the intellectual contents of objects, I'd be interested to hear them.
Many thanks,
James
--
Dr James Cummings, [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Senior Lecturer in Late-Medieval Literature and Digital Humanities
School of English, Newcastle University
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the MCG list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=MCG&A=1
****************************************************************
website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
[un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
****************************************************************
