Closed wlpotter closed 1 year ago
Thanks Will. Any feedback on the document?
@michaelwingert sorry, I had sent some notes via email. Here they:
First I wanted to clarify, regarding the template, if you found it difficult to use or if it is just an aesthetic preference? I don’t have a preference for how you format the information, I just want to make sure that the template isn’t adding an extra burden to your work — and also that we get all the needed info.
For this first pass through each of the manuscripts, the most important information for us is to see what are all the different texts that this manuscript contains. So your section “Outline of Manuscript Contents” is great as you give both the primary contents as well as the other textual material, such as notes, that could be of interest as paratexts.
The other information in the document is less important at this stage, unless it is a correction of what’s on the SMDL website. As you may remember, for many of these manuscripts the cataloguing information we’ve consulted so far lacks detailed information on the contained texts, so that’s what we’re focusing on right now. In the second pass through the manuscript, we’ll have you build on the descriptions of the texts and go into more detail for each of them.
For now, however, go ahead and work on creating the outline of contents for the other two manuscripts (#15 and #17). Remember, no need to have everything perfectly and exactly identified and correct for the outlines as you’ll be able to dig deeper into the textual content in subsequent passes.
Issue for paratext and secondary text created: #101
SMDL Link: https://sinaimanuscripts.library.ucla.edu/catalog/ark:%2F21198%2Fz11n9jq6
Metadata Gathering Doc: