Open nathangibson opened 8 years ago
@davidamichelson @jsaintlauren So I was looking at this further and realized the majority of these ancient versions referenced by BHSE as "cf. CPG" may not even exist. Apparently, the following note from Zanetti:
Versions. ant. versions latines, arménienne, coptes, géorgienne, arabe, éthiopienne, slave, sogdienne cf. CPG
was transformed into
<note xml:lang="la" type="ancientVersion" source="#bib430-1">
<bibl xml:id="bib430-9">cf. <title>CPG</title></bibl>
</note>
<note xml:lang="ar" type="ancientVersion" source="#bib430-1">
<bibl xml:id="bib430-10">cf. <title>CPG</title></bibl>
</note>
...
Did Zanetti actually check in CPG which versions are extant, or did he just copy/paste this note for all works that have ancient versions listed in CPG?
If the latter, then my opinion is that we should do something quite different with the "cf. CPG" notes. Either (1) put a generic note that, without specifying languages, simply says something like "See Clavis Patrum Graecorum ..." or (2) have a research assistant check the 124 works that have this and delete the notes for language versions which do not actually exist. What do you think?
After further discussion, probably Zanetti did actually list the extant languages. Double-check a couple records against CPG, and if correct, put CPG no. as <citedRange unit="entry">
@davidamichelson @jsaintlauren As you know, a lot of BHSE entries have for "ancient versions" just a note for each language saying "cf. CPG." I've already included the URI for our bibl record for CPG in such entries, but should we also run a script to grab the CPG idno referenced elsewhere in the record and put it in as a
<citedRange unit="entry">
? I don't have CPG in front of me at the moment and I don't remember whether the entry number is the same or different for different language versions. If different, then this idea is a no go.