Distinguishing records encoded from catalogues and enriched records / Credits visibility

[eu-genia]

We need to have a way to clearly distinguish between records created on the basis of a historical catalogue only and between records significantly enriched. At the moment, whenever a catalogue is listed in the source bibliography, the header says This manuscript description is based on the catalogues listed in the catalogue bibliography What we could relatively easily achieve is that whenever the ptr target bm:BmWebsite is added among the source catalogues, this description changes to something like This manuscript description is based on the catalogue(s) listed in the catalogue bibliography and has been corrected or enriched by the Bm project team; please check Revision history for more information

Could that be a solution? Any other ideas? Better wording? Suggestions are welcome.

I also wonder if the suggested bibliographic citation for quoting Bm records should be generated to reflect that. E.g. BmTeamMember(s), '...... [encoded from the catalogue]', .... vs BmTeamMember(s), '..... [newly catalogued]', ... vs BmTeamMember(s), '..... [enriched description]', ..... or is that too much?

@abausi @DenisNosnitsin1970 @CarstenHoffmannMarburg @thea-m @nafisa-valieva @karljonaskarlsson @SophiaD-M @GueshSol

[DenisNosnitsin1970]

"This manuscript description is based on the catalogue(s) listed in the catalogue bibliography and has been corrected or enriched by the Bm project team; please check Revision history for more information" - this seems to be ok for me. The catalogues should indicate changes in Revision history.

[GueshSol]

I appreciate the suggestions made by @eu-genia. Although it is important to acknowledge the presence of previous catalogues, there should be a means to indicate like 'the current catalogue offers a more detailed and exhaustive description of both the textual and decorative elements.' in some of the manuscripts.

A good example of this is MS Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, BnF Éthiopien d'Abbadie 114. This manuscript was previously cataloged by Abbadie (1859), Conti Rossini (1914), and Chaîne (1912). Although I referenced some basic data from these earlier catalogues, my description identifies thirty-three miracles and their corresponding miniatures—details that were not covered in the older catalogues. While acknowledging and appreciating the earlier efforts is crucial, it must not diminish the contributions of the current catalogue (s).

Therefore, I suggest two options:

If the cataloged manuscript heavily relies on a previous catalog with only minor modifications, the title proposed by Zhenia seems appropriate. If a new catalog is provided by our Bm team, while still acknowledging previous efforts, it should emphasize the significant updates and differences. For instance, the British Library manuscripts catalogued by our team differ substantially from Wright's (1877) earlier catalogue, even though we share some basic manuscript details. In this case, I would recommend saying: "The present manuscript description is provided by the Bm team, incorporating basic information from previous cataloging efforts." This is my personal observation. Thank you so much!

[CarstenHoffmannMarburg]

I am Ok with the changes, which Eugenia suggested. If I got it right, this means one multiple choice selection or decision for each new manuscript record and perhaps a change of this, if we update a record.

I do not really see the advantage in Gueshs proposal. If all the catalogues are listed and the encoding desc says it (BmTeamMember(s), '..... [enriched description]', .....), why are there additional remarks in the encoding desc neccessary. It is more useful to point at the differences in the ms-description (e.g. "According to ...", "Contrary to ..." or "Not mentioned by ...").

[nafisa-valieva]

Thank you! I find the suggestion convincing. Can't think for a better wording.

[karljonaskarlsson]

I also think Zhenia's suggestion will be an important addition

[eu-genia]

tested in BNFabb90

This is now up to the cataloguers to add <bibl><ptr target="bm:BmWebsite"/></bibl> to the Catalogue bibliography if you want the text to change as suggested above. NB do not use it for newly catalogued manuscripts not using historical catalogues, that is

• newly catalogued = do not do anything
• closely following a historical catalogue = just cite the catalogue as before
• enriching the catalogue description, e.g. checking the images = add the bm:BmWebsite to the catalogue list