sonofmun
commented
7 years ago @AlisonBabeu Sorry for the delay on the answer here. I think that we should renumber the URNs to match TLG. And I think that the file for Catena in epistulam ad Hebraeos should be separated, since they represent two editions of the same work. But they should both have the same work-level URN (tlg4102.tlg038).
AlisonBabeu
So while working on the tlg4102 files I discovered starting that at tlg4102.tlg039 the files started being behind by one work number. This appears to have happened because our tlg4102.tlg038 "Catena in epistulam ad Hebraeos (e cod. Paris. Coislin. 204)" also contains the TLG separately identified tlg4102.tlg039 work "Catena in epistulam ad Hebraeos (catena Nicetae) (e cod. Paris. gr. 238)" starting at about line 6042 in the XML file.
Thus our files tlg4102.tlg039 to tlg4102.tlg045 are "misnumbered" as they represent the works found in tlg4102.tlg040 to tlg4102.tlg046 in the official TLG canon. At the same time, it looks like the metadata in the headers and the actual works found within the XML files are correct.
My question then @sonofmun and @annettegessner is what approach to take. I had planned to just make minor corrections to the headers and cts files per usual, but I'm not sure if we want to keep the correspondence to the actual TLG work IDs here since we did for the rest of the tlg4102 files and have used the same edition. I'm happy to renumber theURNs as well as create a separate issue for separating out tlg4102.tlg038 and tlg4102.tlg039 into two separate works if that is what you think is the best way forward. Thanks!