search

OpenStemmata / database

An open database of stemmata
Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International
13 stars 12 forks source link

Gottfried Tristan #49

Closed Lena2001 closed 3 years ago

Jean-Baptiste-Camps commented 3 years ago

Hello to you both and welcome @Lena2001 for this first pull request !

If you mean the hypothetical ancestor of, basically, two manuscripts, one as first model, the other as contamination (secondary model), I've done the same and think it's the good way.

Like this:

image

image

Impressive stemma, by the way !

Jean-Baptiste-Camps commented 3 years ago

Would this be extra-stemmatic contamination ?

image

Jean-Baptiste-Camps commented 3 years ago

One last question for me. How should we interpret the difference of target point for this two arrows:

  1. a simple placement question?
  2. a difference meaning successive contaminations (in which case we need not one but two intermediary nodes)?

image

GusRiva commented 3 years ago

Would this be extra-stemmatic contamination ?

image

Yes

GusRiva commented 3 years ago

One last question for me. How should we interpret the difference of target point for this two arrows:

  1. a simple placement question?
  2. a difference meaning successive contaminations (in which case we need not one but two intermediary nodes)?

image

Hi, took me a while to check, but yes, it's just a placement question.

Jean-Baptiste-Camps commented 3 years ago

Ok, I've looked at the whole very complex stemma, and, apart from a headache, I got two last questions (one is about our metadata format):

  1. I find the way the editor distinguishes hypothetic / observed nodes confusing at times. Do you confirm we have cases of:

image

image

  1. Some stemmata like this one have a timeline on which nodes are set. This can be an useful information. Do you think we should store that in the medatada ?
GusRiva commented 3 years ago

Sorry, seems like we wrote at the same time, let me check that.

GusRiva commented 3 years ago
  • hypothetic node without descent ?

image

Good point, I think that is a lost manuscript, but that we definitely know existed, because we have records of it and was used by scholars in the past.

GusRiva commented 3 years ago
  • hypothetic node without descent ?

I'm wondering if we should use some different attribute for these manuscripts, because it is not the same a hypothetical node. We know that the manuscript existed and in this case we even have an Early Modern transcription.

I'm opening an issue before deciding what to do here #56