When PanditProject was being planned, Yigal and his team developed a data model that corresponds quite closely to the more recent BIBFRAME.  In particular, the clean distinction between work, person, and manuscript (PP Data Model).  In BIBFRAME, this is work, agent and instance+item. 

MARC had two serious failings in relation to manuscript work. 

First, MARC databases are flat-file databases (like spreadsheets).  That is a disaster for data integrity.  If you have to enter, say, a bibliography for the Bhagavadgītā separately for every single BG manuscript, first it's laborious, and second it becomes error-prone over many records. 

Second, the structure and content of MARC records don't fit the information we want to record about manuscripts, especially Indian MSS.  MARC can be bent for MS cataloguing, but it's always non-standard and weird.  MARC just wasn't designed for that. 

• Pass, Gregory. 2003. Descriptive Cataloging of Ancient, Medieval, Renaissance, and Early Modern Manuscripts (Chicago: American Library Association) <http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/publications/booksanddigitalresources/digital/AMREMM_full.pdf>

was a brave attempt to bridge the MARC-MS gap, but it was never widely adopted and it was written as if Asia didn't exist.

BIBFRAME (which is new to me) provides a framework for creating a "triple store", but that doesn't get one all the way to a relational database.   Although nowadays the relational database model is considered a bit old, as far as I know it is still the only way to solve the issue of "atomic values" (Codd), i.e., only enter information about an entity (author, title, manuscript) once.  All other references to that information are hot links (relational links) to that one atomic instance.  I am not au fait with the whole triplestore concept, but I believe you can build a relational database system on top of triplestore/RDF data.  But prima facie I can't see how RDF triples enforce atomic data values.

That's why PanditProject is so important.  (Well, one of the reasons.)  As it grows, it has data-integrity built into the very heart of how it works.  So when there are tens of thousands or millions of entries, there will still be only a single entry each for Bhagavadgītā or Kālidāsa or MS Kathmandu KL 699 or any other entity.  If future scholarship decides definitively that it's Kauṭalya not Kauṭilya, the one entry for that name can be updated and every other instance in all the millions of records will be automatically correct too.

Best,

Dominik

--

Professor Dominik Wujastyk

,

Singhmar Chair in Classical Indian Society and Polity

,

Department of History, Classics, and Religion

,

University of Alberta, Canada

.

South Asia at the UofA:

 

sas.ualberta.ca

SSHRC research: The Suśruta Project

Journal: History of Science in South Asia

On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 at 05:44, Jan Kučera <jan.kucera@ujca.cz> wrote:

For cataloguing records there is the MARC replacement, BIBFRAME, and its work-instance-item model: https://www.loc.gov/bibframe/docs/bibframe2-model.html

 

Whoever is interested in BIBRAME there is a free workshop in Helsinki in September: http://www.bfwe.eu/helsinki_2024

 

Thanks,

Jan

ल Institute of South and Central Asia Students, Prague

Chair, Script Encoding Working Group, Unicode

 

 

From: INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info> On Behalf Of Dominik Wujastyk via INDOLOGY
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2024 5:05 AM
To: Harry Spier <vasishtha.spier@gmail.com>
Cc: indology@list.indology.info
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Descriptive sanskrit manuscript catalogues best practices

 

Chapter 2 of the Text Encoding Guidelines addresses this very issue.  When the TEI Guidelines were first being thought through, the concept we worked with was that the "document header" should function like a library catalogue card.  Of course it got more detailed and diverse as more types of document were considered.

 

In any case, TEI chapter 2 is a major, deeply-considered standard for this task.  It's the elephant in the room.  In planning a future policy for an etext repository, TEI 2 should either be adopted, adapted, or -- god forbid -- consciously rejected.  Whatever position is taken, it has to be vis-a-vis TEI 2.

 

As a footnote, I was chair of the first TEI document header committee from 1991, and I wrote the first draft of this part of the TEI standard.  If you don't like it, blame me  :-)   Of course, it evolved unrecognizably after my time.

 

Best,

Dominik

 

Prof. Dominik Wujastyk

Singhmar Chair in Classical Indian Polity and Society

University of Alberta

--

"The University of Alberta is committed to the pursuit of truth, the advancement of learning, and the dissemination of knowledge through teaching, research and other scholarly and creative activities and service"

 

 

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology