Complete / partial stemma

[Jean-Baptiste-Camps]

To facilitate extraction, we should probably add a field to state if the stemma is complete (all known tradition), partial (we could differentiate: partial - sub-branch of the full tradition, partial - descripti removed, partial - derivatives omitted, or source text omitted for the case of translations, prosifications, etc.) and complete.

(following the discussion at our session at EADH2021).

[GusRiva]

I think this is a good idea. The categories of derivatives and source text are contentious, though. I wouldn't consider a stemma to be "partial" because it does not include derivatives. Maybe it should be the other way around, a subcategory of "complete": "complete- plus derivatives", "complete - plus source text" ?

[Jean-Baptiste-Camps]

Could we have three categories, then:

• partial
• complete
• complete-with-derivatives/source-text

?

[Jean-Baptiste-Camps]

@gabays

[GusRiva]

I like the idea of having some subcategories for partial, as you suggested:

• partial - sub-branch
• partial - descripti removed,

[Jean-Baptiste-Camps]

Oh my, I've already raised this issue two months earlier in #66 … After the next Guidelines update, we should integrate this as the next data model task.

[Jean-Baptiste-Camps]

Ok, let's summarize our contributions from both issues:

If I merge your two suggestions, @GusRiva , and mine, I arrive at the following:

• scope: "partial(branch)" => includes only one branch of the known tradition
• scope: "partial(selected)" => does not include all extant manuscripts, only the main ones for textual criticism (e.g., descripti removed, etc.)
• scope: "partial(incomplete)" => involuntarily incomplete, because it does not include manuscripts found after the date, or incomplete for any other reason not contemplated in the other categories.
• scope: "complete" => the full known tradition of the text (from original or archetype to all extant witnesses).
• scope:"extended" (alternativerly complete-with-derivatives/source-text") => same as the above, but also including the tradition of the text/work with its derivatives (ancient translations, rewritings, etc.).

I have just an hesitation about partial(incomplete, because most of the time the information will not be available in the source itself… But it is precious.

[GusRiva]

I agree that partial(incomplete) can be problematic, but, as you say, it is very important information. I would include it as a category.

About extended: does it always imply complete? Could there be a stemma with sources or translations, but only a partial(selected) stemma of the main text. Maybe extended should be an optional addition to one of the others? Like complete|extended or partial(selected)|extended.

[Jean-Baptiste-Camps]

extended(complete) and extended(partial) ? It starts to be quite a lot of subcategories, yet it is more precise like this.

Alternatively, we can add a second separate field:

• source text/derivatives: included
• source text/derivatives: selected
• source text/derivatives: excluded
• source text/derivatives: not applicable (default).

[GusRiva]

Yes, I am also getting worried that it might get too complex, but hopefully we can keep it in a way that is useful and understandable.

I tend towards making two different fields, as they are two independent features of the stemma. I can imagine that in most research questions one might want to exclude the extended stemmata. At the same time, there might be some research questions that want only the extended ones. So having a special field makes that easier.

[Jean-Baptiste-Camps]

TODO:

• [ ] Gus -> workflow and TEI

• [x] JB -> edit Github.io (form, Guidelines)

• [ ] Both: examinate already existing stemmata

[Jean-Baptiste-Camps]

• sourceText: not applicable (default) | included | selected | excluded
• derivatives: not applicable (default) | included | selected | excluded

[Jean-Baptiste-Camps]

Ok, all is left would be to retro-correct existing stemmata on this point.