Work / Textual Unit

[PietroLiuzzo]

Maria Bulakh wrote:

I was just browsing through the new version of BetMas, and I’ve got a very simple question: in the guidelines, the term «Work» is explained at length (https://betamasaheft.eu/Guidelines/?id=works), but in the menu under Clavis there appear only «textual units» and «narrative units». Are «works» and «textual units» the same? If so, perhaps better eliminate one of the terms, or, alternatively, add the explanation about «textual units» in the guidelines?

---

I have consulted https://betamasaheft.eu/Guidelines/?id=definitionWorks and related pages. Yes, it is certainly a great help to have these guidelines. But as an outsider not aquainted with the inner terminology of BetaMesaheft I have some questions which I could not get clear while serching in the guidelines. 1 Works and textual units: are they synonyms? I’ve got this impression because a link from Textual units goes to the page where the term Work is discussed. But it is not stated explicitly that they are the same. Or, if they are not, what the difference is. 2 Definition of the term «Narrative unit». On page https://betamasaheft.eu/Guidelines/?id=narrativeUnits I found no definition, it starts directly with information how to work with Narrative units in BetaMesaheft. On page https://betamasaheft.eu/Guidelines/?id=definitionWorks it is said: «To decide whether the text you are dealing with is a work or a narrative unit, consider Orlandi 2010, A Terminology for the identification of Coptic Literary Documents.» But In Orlandi 2010, I also failed to find a clear and unambiguous definition of «narrative unit».

https://betamasaheft.eu/help.html

I have tried in the past to clarify this distinction clearly without succeeding. Textual Units and Narrative Units in my mind are both "Works" and the distinction made by Orlandi is clear to me, but it is indeed a deep deep dungeon to get into that kind of discussion. Any volunteer minister of simplification and consistency?

[PietroLiuzzo]

@DariaElagina perhaps you can take this on?

[DariaElagina]

Sure, I will try to make suggestions asap!

[DariaElagina]

So, I have several points to address on this topic:

1) Textual Unit is the same as Work at least in our practice. What we define as Works are to be found under Textual Units, and in the GL these two terms are treated as one. For this reason I would rather reduce our terminology to "Works" and eliminate "Textual Units" for the sake of economy. This way seems to be shorter then the other way round.

2) The Narrative Unit is a tricky thing. I have gone through the Narrative Units we have created to see how this category is applied in reality. We apply (and reccomend to apply) this category in a more wider sence then the suggestion by Orlandi (which refers specifically to the Coptic tradition). If I understand Orlandi well, a narrative unit represents a textual fragment which can be attributed to a specific textual unit, but which has undergone considerable changes in the course of its transmission. Please, correct me if I am wrong! In the GL we have two instances for application of a Narrative Unit: For text portions (paragraphs, chapters, miracles, or episodes which are not explicitly highlighted as text part with individual circulation) which are extant as different versions in multiple recensions of the same work or even in different works, a Narrative Unit is created. This understanding of a Narrative Unit is in a certain sence traced back to the concept by Orlandi. I think that the Narrative Units for certain commemorations in Synaxary are an example for this understanding of Narrative Units (please @thea-m , correct me if I am wrong). The second instance: documentary texts (https://betamasaheft.eu/Guidelines/?id=Documents) - in the practice not only documentary texts, but calendaric notes, tables, and other. In this case the Narative Unit referres to a type or model of a text, without a specific established content. Here a better definition is needed. I think both instances of application make sence and can be summarized on a page for the Narrative Unit.

3. Taking this as an opportunity, I would like to fix in the GL the application of the first- and second-level IDs for the works circulating independently as well as as text parts. This point was recently raised in https://github.com/BetaMasaheft/Documentation/issues/1467#issuecomment-674062338. I think it would make sence to fix in the GL that if a text has two IDs for two ways of its transmission, the content of the manuscript should be encoded according to the tradition it represents. I think this would help to distinguish the streams of transmission, which would be extremely practical. any critisism, wishes, or ideas @thea-m , @DenisNosnitsin1970 , @PietroLiuzzo , @eu-genia ?

[thea-m]

1. Yes, works and textual units are used interchangeably. If we want to decide on one (which would help decrease misunderstandings), I would tend to textual units, but maybe that is for @abausi to decide.
2. Yes, there are different uses of narrative units, all having in common that they refer to "units" that are not fixed and not transmitted uniformally. The synaxarion narrative units are in this way identical to the narrative units for Physiologus chapters. Both works and their parts are transmitted in different versions, and having narrative units allows to compare them. A similar case would be a miracle of Mary that is transmitted as single miracle among the Miracles of Mary and also in another work, for example the Synaxarion or apocryphal literature. For the documentary texts, narrative units are used more broadly to refer to a "genre" of documentary texts which is articulated differently in single manuscripts. An improvement of the guidelines would certainly be helpful! Will you propose something in a PR?
3. I think I remember this third point, but the link does not work and I think this is a different issue? Maybe we could separate it from this discussion? (If it is not a separate issue my memory is faulty).

[DenisNosnitsin1970]

Dear all, we had a long discussion on the narrative units and works a couple of years ago (also internally), and the current work procedure and the conventions how we use means at our disposal is more or les its result. There are some imperfections, some things are contradictory. However, we all can work, and the system functions. Some observations above are correct, but If we want to clean smth up, and to reach at more precise and deep definitions as to what is what (what is text, what is work, collection, version, document etc.), we will need some more (protracted) discussions with preparations. It is more difficult that it looks like. To sum up, I suggest that we postpone it for the time after the summer school (at least I cannot follow it properly at the time being).

[thea-m]

@DenisNosnitsin1970 I completely agree. However, it is important to note that the (internal) conclusions we have reached are not easily understandable to those who were not present at these discussions. In cases as this, were they are really central to the project, it is important that they are transparent to someone who starts working with BM today and has only the website and guidelines as their guide. If @DariaElagina improves the guidelines on the basis of the existing consensus, then I think that would be exactly appropriate here.

[eu-genia]

(moved to documentation/issues) 3 https://github.com/BetaMasaheft/Documentation/issues/1467 this point was originally discussed in relation to visualization (both derived IDs and individual IDs are now visualized in the same way if the derived ID has the corresp in the work record) https://github.com/BetaMasaheft/Documentation/issues/811 at that point we did not discuss however whether we should fix the way the works are referred to (e.g. always use derived IDs if the collection is used; NB: some works may have several derived IDs if they occur in several collections) I am not sure as to the added value of fixing the reference, as to the transmission constellation is obvious from the manuscript context

[PietroLiuzzo]

Why transfer this issue? this is about the text of the guidelines, and should stay there...

[eu-genia]

i was under probably wrong impression that issues are treated here so that they can also be searched for in the same place. also because there were already issues touching upon the narrative units etc. https://github.com/BetaMasaheft/Documentation/issues/223 https://github.com/BetaMasaheft/Documentation/issues/243 and guidelines can be added as a label

if we now split the issues according to the entity I missed this I am sorry

[PietroLiuzzo]

Yes, we kept guidelines issues in the guidelines repository at least since 2018, so no, it is no news. You can have a look at the Guidelines repository issues since 2018 to get an idea. The label guidelines in the documentation repository where we keep all other issues is used for things which may turn out to produce an issue in the guidelines as part of their solution. We also added a description of the label to clarify this. If you are not sure where an issue belongs between the two, or how to label, simply ask, we all get notifications. This issue specifically is really only an issue of wording and clarity in the guidelines. The issues on narrative units you pointed to, need to stay here, may be they can related to BetaMasaheft/Documentation#811, but are general issues, not guidelines issues yet.

[PietroLiuzzo]

discussion in #811 may help here.

[DariaElagina]

So, since it a PR and Ticket week I will make some more suggestions.

1. I would still advocate for using the term "Work" instead of "Textual Unit". The reson is very simple. We use "Work" also as a prefix to our work files and in our labels in issues. If we instead keep "Textual Unit" the confusion would remain. Once we agree upon which term to keep, I will go through the GL and update them accordingly.
2. I will update the following page in GL: https://betamasaheft.eu/Guidelines/?id=definitionWorks We should have there a definition for a work, textparts, and narrative units clearly structured. My definition of Narrative Units is the following: Narrative Units are texts or text portions whithout stable content, precise sequence, and uniformal transmission, which could be, at least theoretically, traced back to the same module or source text. In the frames of the project the term "Narrative Unit" is applied in two cases:
   • For text portions (paragraphs, chapters, miracles, or episodes which are not explicitly highlighted as text part with individual circulation) which are extant as different versions in multiple recensions of the same work or even in different works. (Examples, from Synaxary and Physiologus)
   • For texts or other types of intellectual content (for example, tables) which follow the same module in the sence of content and form. For example, calendaric notes, documentary texts, etc. For a better understanding of the concept of Narrative Units, please, consider Orlandi 2010, A Terminology for the identification of Coptic Literary Documents.

[PietroLiuzzo]

I do not think we need to make additions to definitions, we simply need to make some things clearer in their wording and add some words and some links. I think in the app, that has been discussed and is the origin of the confusion. The Guidelines are after all in better shape in terms of clarity. There I think Textual Unit will go, and is not likely to cause further issues.

• here, in the page where we defined and start discussing Works we already have a clear definition and several links
• here, where we expand on the distinction between Narrative and Textual Units, we already give examples and concise definitions. I would not add more definitions and introduce more concepts, but I agree that restructuring the list into a series of sections with more examples for each would help a lot. This page will link in a more explicit way to the other two pages in question. I would leave the text parts to where they are already, since I think this was not unclear.
• here, where Narrative Units are defined, I think we would be ok by simply changing "Textual Unit" to "Work".]

looking forward to the PR!

[DariaElagina]

1. It seems that the application of the two terms for the same thing (Works and Textual Units) would cause confusions. I refer here to the words of Maria Bulakh cited above. So, we have either to stick to one term, or to declare that Works and Textual units are the same and we use them interchangeably.
2. I did not add any new definition to Narrative Units. I have rather tried to summarize the ways the term is used within the project. The problem is that the information of Narrative Units is somewhat scattered in the GL.
3. As far as I understand Maria was pointing to the text of the GL, which is also a starting point of the discussion.

[PietroLiuzzo]

ok, perhaps with a PR we will be able to make more progress. thanks!

[DariaElagina]

I would like first to discuss what to change and what to keep, and whether my understanding of Narrative Units is correct. So that I know, what to do for the PR.

[eu-genia]

Are we done here or are we still in the process?