search

BetaMasaheft / Documentation

Die Schriftkultur des christlichen Äthiopiens: Eine multimediale Forschungsumgebung
3 stars 3 forks source link

add secondary bibliographic reference that has not been used as a source for the record #1073

Closed thea-m closed 5 years ago

thea-m commented 5 years ago

Does it make sense to add a general secondary reference to a manuscript record, even if it has not been used as a source for the record? It could not be in <source>. (I was reading something on BLorient481 and thought it would be useful for readers of the record to have the article listed in the bibliography, but I didn't work on this record and it wouldn't make sense for me now to incorporate the information.) What do you think @PietroLiuzzo ?

PietroLiuzzo commented 5 years ago

Adding a bibliographical reference is always good IMHO. you should be able to use your listBibl elsewhere than in source. You can also point to another manuscript record or section of another manuscript record with a simple ref

sologebre commented 5 years ago

test for Dorothea!

thea-m commented 5 years ago

thank you @sologebre !

thea-m commented 5 years ago

and thank you @PietroLiuzzo ! In this case, I'm not really sure where to add the reference - it gives some background information on the manuscript's history, on some content items and physical characteristics but no particular place in the record comes to mind to me naturally. Do you have maybe a suggestion for a place for a general reference?

PietroLiuzzo commented 5 years ago

into additional, after the adminInfo, where there is currently the wrong listBibl type edition? that could/should become your secondary bibliography and you could add the reference there.

thea-m commented 5 years ago

Perfect! Should I add something to the guidelines or don't we want to discourage people from finding a more precise place for inserting their references?

PietroLiuzzo commented 5 years ago

I would be in favour of the second.

thea-m commented 5 years ago

Thank you!