{"action":"opened","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/SChAth/ScAthiop/issues/415","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/SChAth/ScAthiop","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/SChAth/ScAthiop/issues/415/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/SChAth/ScAthiop/issues/415/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/SChAth/ScAthiop/issues/415/events","html_url":"https://github.com/SChAth/ScAthiop/issues/415","id":223780803,"number":415,"title":"Estimated dating of the MS","user":{"login":"MassimoVilla","id":18189063,"avatar_url":"https://avatars1.githubusercontent.com/u/18189063?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/MassimoVilla","html_url":"https://github.com/MassimoVilla","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/MassimoVilla/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/MassimoVilla/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/MassimoVilla/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/MassimoVilla/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/MassimoVilla/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/MassimoVilla/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/MassimoVilla/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/MassimoVilla/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/MassimoVilla/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":0,"created_at":"2017-04-24T10:57:47Z","updated_at":"2017-04-24T10:57:47Z","closed_at":null,"body":"When referring to the dating of the manuscript, we generally adopt that of the cataloguer(s), but other proposals might have been done by other scholars. In these cases, when we have two competing opinions, we need to specify the source of the estimation.\r\nThe following example is taken from BAVet43. Here we have a broader dating made by Grébaut and Tisserant (16-17th cent.) and a \"narrow\" proposal made by Conti Rossini (second half of the 16th century).\r\n\r\n`   <origDate notBefore=\"1540\"   notAfter=\"1699\">\r\n                        <note>\r\n                           Date according to <bibl><ptr target=\"bm:GrebTiss1935Codices\"/>\r\n                           <citedRange unit=\"page\">187-190</citedRange></bibl>. \r\n                           </note>\r\n                     </origDate>\r\n                     <origDate notBefore=\"1550\"   notAfter=\"1599\">\r\n                        <note>Date according to <bibl><ptr target=\"bm:ContiRossini1927Inediti\"/>\r\n                           <citedRange unit=\"page\">516</citedRange></bibl>.</note>\r\n                     </origDate>`\r\n\r\nHere I encoded the bibliographic reference within `<note/>` but other solutions are possible.\r\nIs it worth repeating the bibliographic reference to the catalogue, which also appears by default in the `<source/>` section down in the file?\r\nAlternatively, we might only add the person ID: ` <origDate notBefore=\"1540\"\r\n                              notAfter=\"1699\"\r\n                              resp=\"PRS4805Grebaut PRS9530Tisseran\"/>`.\r\nThe same question also affects the paleographical description. \r\nBoth Dorothea and I think that a standardized way to deal with such cases is required.\r\n"}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"MassimoVilla"}}