-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
Description
OK guys, after much thought I have decided we need supercategories for testimonia, which I would call "Class" (es). I hope you agree. This is because users (I think?) will be interested in browsing/searching broad classes of testimonia that are in terms of material, composition, content, and even thought-worlds and traditions and modes of consumption/reading, significantly different--and these classes align with traditions and skill-sets of scholarship. They would be the following:
Class: Literature [by far most testimonia]
Class: Document>Inscription
Class: Document>Graffiti, dipinti, instrumenta domestica
Class: Document>Papyrus
Class: Document>Law
Class: Document>Map
Now "Class" is a separate ontology (right word?) than what I would call "Type" (or we can switch "Class" and "Type" here?)--I think of "Type" as what might traditionally (e.g. TLG) be called "Genre", but it might I submit be wise to steer sway from "Genre" because it would seem to carry the baggage of longstanding traditional classifications of literary sources, with their own embedded purposes, and to carry the flavor of literary-cultural criticism. "Type" could be things like (we talked about this before) "Hagiography," "Epic Poetry," "Itinerary" (or Pilgrims' Account) etc. Those "Type" s could of course crosscut the ontologies "Class" and "Type", because one can imagine perhaps quotations from or fragments from a "Hagiography" showing up on a papyrus found in Lower Egypt. I can also imagine certain "Types" that we create in the future pertaining chiefly to Class: Document>Inscription such as "Epitaph" showing up in written sources, if they are quoted e.g. in historical narratives. But those cases would be rareties. The point is that "Class" and "Type" are separate ontologies.
I am not sure whether all these musings make sense or are not appropriate to this GitHub dialog medium??
thx Joe
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Type
Projects
Status