The main ms is composite https://bl.syriac.uk/ms/552 and has 2 distinct parts: 553 and 554 respectively parts 1 and 2.
In part#1, previous editing did not insert the footnote of Fol. 23b in anywhere in part#1, only partially in part#2 (PDF: https://archive.org/details/catalogueofsyria01brituoft/page/391/mode/1up?view=theater; and Xpath: /TEI/teiHeader/fileDesc/sourceDesc/msDesc/msPart/msContents/msItem/note/locus after in XML).
It was only the title (in both English and Syriac) found in the footnote that was mentioned as the first msItem element of part#2.
Therefore, I have tagged it as a footnote after the last msItem of part#1.
Was this correct?
Whereas, the previously added note to the of part#2 is unclear to me.
It says:
See hand description. (see /TEI/teiHeader/fileDesc/sourceDesc/msDesc/msPart/msContents/msItem/note/ref in XML; PDF: same as above, because Wright does not mention it at all in part#2: https://archive.org/details/catalogueofsyria01brituoft/page/211/mode/1up?view=theater).
Previous editing has reported the content of this missing footnote in handNote xml:id="p2handNote2" as a ref to previously mentioned hand description. (See Xpath: /TEI/teiHeader/fileDesc/sourceDesc/msDesc/msPart/physDesc/handDesc/handNote/ref)
Should I keep it as a hand description that has no
Thanks @DA-Gharib while we would usually want to keep footnotes as Wright has them, in this case what the encoder did by moving the information in the footnote on p. 391 into an msItem at the beginning of part 2 is preferred because we want to pull out the information about the manuscript item that is on f. 25a. So, we do not need to add it as a footnote in part 1
This is also the reason, I think, for the confusing notes about the hand description, etc. Because Wright includes information about a piece of content that is added to part 2 by the writer of part 1, so we want to include the item in part 2 but we also want to note that the hand that wrote that item is the same as the writer of part 1.
To resolve the hand description, let's update the handNote to make more clear what it is referring to as follows:
<handNote xml:id="p2handNote2" medium="unknown" scope="minor" script="syr">
The writer of the 24 leaves bound with this manuscript (<ref target="https://bl.syriac.uk/ms/553">Add. 14,692, foll. 1-24</ref>) wrote the <ref>prayer, to be substituted
for the oratio pacis on Thursday in Passion Week and on the
Saturday of Annunciation</ref> on <locus from="25a">fol. 25 a</locus>.
</handNote>
We will leave the ref element that encloses the title of the msItem, but we don't need to include a @target attribute
The main ms is composite https://bl.syriac.uk/ms/552 and has 2 distinct parts: 553 and 554 respectively parts 1 and 2.
In part#1, previous editing did not insert the footnote of Fol. 23b in anywhere in part#1, only partially in part#2 (PDF: https://archive.org/details/catalogueofsyria01brituoft/page/391/mode/1up?view=theater; and Xpath: /TEI/teiHeader/fileDesc/sourceDesc/msDesc/msPart/msContents/msItem/note/locus after in XML).
It was only the title (in both English and Syriac) found in the footnote that was mentioned as the first msItem element of part#2.
Therefore, I have tagged it as a footnote after the last msItem of part#1.
Was this correct?
Whereas, the previously added note to the of part#2 is unclear to me.
It says:
Thanks @DA-Gharib while we would usually want to keep footnotes as Wright has them, in this case what the encoder did by moving the information in the footnote on p. 391 into an msItem at the beginning of part 2 is preferred because we want to pull out the information about the manuscript item that is on f. 25a. So, we do not need to add it as a footnote in part 1
This is also the reason, I think, for the confusing notes about the hand description, etc. Because Wright includes information about a piece of content that is added to part 2 by the writer of part 1, so we want to include the item in part 2 but we also want to note that the hand that wrote that item is the same as the writer of part 1.
To resolve the hand description, let's update the handNote to make more clear what it is referring to as follows:
We will leave the
refelement that encloses the title of the msItem, but we don't need to include a@targetattributeThanks Will, It's done now, and will close the issue