A lot of the time, when Wright cited a part/item in another manuscript he used the item's number based on Wright's outline. Since we haven't kept those numbers, it is very difficult for users to get to the actual citation -- even if they go to the right ms page, we've overwritten Wright's outline with our own. I think the ideal situation is to use the @xml:id attribute values for the msItem, but this will require someone (a student?) to match these by hand since I can't think of a way to automate this at all.
Many of the bibls needing to be matched can be found with a //bibl/citedRange[@unit = ""] (i.e., an empty @unit attribute on the citedRange). However, there are a lot of other cases where these simply don't have a citedRange element.
We can make a spreadsheet for someone to work through. This should wait on a few issues to be resolved first, however.
44 needs to be pulled in
108 will help us link directly to the HTML page for easier viewing (though will they be able to see the item Id there?)
59 will be necessary, along with its follow up #58 , so that the xml:ids have the correct values.
A lot of the time, when Wright cited a part/item in another manuscript he used the item's number based on Wright's outline. Since we haven't kept those numbers, it is very difficult for users to get to the actual citation -- even if they go to the right ms page, we've overwritten Wright's outline with our own. I think the ideal situation is to use the
@xml:id
attribute values for the msItem, but this will require someone (a student?) to match these by hand since I can't think of a way to automate this at all.Many of the bibls needing to be matched can be found with a
//bibl/citedRange[@unit = ""]
(i.e., an empty@unit
attribute on the citedRange). However, there are a lot of other cases where these simply don't have a citedRange element.We can make a spreadsheet for someone to work through. This should wait on a few issues to be resolved first, however.
44 needs to be pulled in
108 will help us link directly to the HTML page for easier viewing (though will they be able to see the item Id there?)
59 will be necessary, along with its follow up #58 , so that the xml:ids have the correct values.