New Catalog ID for Antonine Itinerary?

[ChiaraPalladino]

I have checked the online catalog and there doesn't seem to be a record for the Antonine Itinerary. Is it possible to create one? I am curating an XML version of the text that at some point may be worth sharing.

[AlisonBabeu]

hi @ChiaraPalladino and @lcerrato I believe that this work/author is already in the Scaife VIewer here. This work/author was cataloged in 2017 (a point when new records could no longer be pushed to the online catalog).

Thibault actually raised an issue with the author identification here (OpenGreekAndLatin/csel-dev#303) and requested I change the textgroup for the Itinerarium to the Anonymous pilgrim of Piacenza. I also updated the catalog record to illustrate that Antoninus of Piacenza was the attributed author. Or do I have the wrong Antonine Itinerary?

[ChiaraPalladino]

Hi @AlisonBabeu , that's a different itinerary. The Antonine Itinerary I am referring to is from the edition by Otto Cuntz, Itineraria romana. Itineraria Antonini Augusti et Burdigalense (Teubner 1929). The full scholarly title is "Itinerarium Antonini Augusti".

[AlisonBabeu]

hi @ChiaraPalladino so it turns out I do have an ID created for that textgroup as well, this time the "Itineraria Antonini Augusti" under stoa0329b (also an ID requested by Thibault) but I've never cataloged anything under it (so it remains an identifier in a list). Would this be the correct authority record (https://viaf.org/viaf/5441161274886047650005/#Itinerarium_Antonini) for this work/author?

[ChiaraPalladino]

@AlisonBabeu it looks like it's correct! I guess it's plural because it's two itineraries into one. I can use stoa0329b to refer to the textgroup, then.
There are, to my knowledge, two editions that are used fairly often. One is the Itineraria Romana from 1929, the other is the edition by Parthey and Pinder from 1848. Relevant links are:

• Cuntz: vol. 1 https://books.google.com/books/about/Itineraria_romana.html?id=ny-GxgEACAAJ
• Parthey-Pinder: https://archive.org/details/itinerariumanto00pindgoog

I am working off of the Cuntz edition at the moment, but ToposText is already using the CTS URN urn:cts:latinLit:stoa0329b.stoa001 to point to Parthey and Pinder. I am guessing they created it on their own because it points to nothing in the Perseus Catalog.

[lcerrato]

There is a work ID there but the authority seems to be the DLL https://catalog.digitallatin.org/dll-work/W4685

[AlisonBabeu]

hi @lcerrato and @ChiaraPalladino if you look at the authority record they actually note the Perseus Catalog as the authority because this ID is one that I developed for a number of works/textgroups found in the digilibLT (per request of Thibault who was digitizing a number of these works for a separate project and needs IDs for CTS URNs). They have an ediition here: https://digiliblt.uniupo.it/xtf/view?docId=dlt000296/dlt000296.xml;query=Itineraria;brand=default. I think this random STOA ID has now made the rounds. I will, however, create a textgroup authority record for it in catalog data and be happy to add a record for any edition you happen to create Chiara!

[ChiaraPalladino]

Yes please @AlisonBabeu! That would be great!

[ChiaraPalladino]

hi @lcerrato and @ChiaraPalladino if you look at the authority record they actually note the Perseus Catalog as the authority because this ID is one that I developed for a number of works/textgroups found in the digilibLT (per request of Thibault who was digitizing a number of these works for a separate project and needs IDs for CTS URNs). They have an ediition here: https://digiliblt.uniupo.it/xtf/view?docId=dlt000296/dlt000296.xml;query=Itineraria;brand=default. I think this random STOA ID has now made the rounds. I will, however, create a textgroup authority record for it in catalog data and be happy to add a record for any edition you happen to create Chiara!

Addendum regarding the digilibLT text: that is the Cuntz edition, the same I am using.

[AlisonBabeu]

hi @lcerrato and @ChiaraPalladino I've added the relevant metadata for a textgroup (to the nonvisible data alas). Just ping me whenever you've created a digital edition and I can catalog it and perhaps we can put it in the Scaife Viewer.

[ChiaraPalladino]

I already have a digital edition file that is basically the digilibLT XML, revised, cleaned up and made CTS compliant. I am still working on it but it does exist at this point.

If that's okay, I could use urn:cts:latinLit:stoa0329b.stoa002, since this is a different edition than the one on ToposText, currently classified as stoa001.

[PonteIneptique]

Hi everyone 😊 As I got the notification, I'll just add that this text was part of the bunch we ported to capitains guidelines back in the days : https://github.com/lascivaroma/digiliblt/blob/master/data/stoa0329b/stoa001/stoa0329b.stoa001.digilibLT-lat1.xml

…

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024, 3:59 pm Chiara Palladino, ***@***.***> wrote: I already have a digital edition file that is basically the digilibLT XML, revised, cleaned up and made CTS compliant. I am still working on it but it does exist at this point. If that's okay, I could use urn:cts:latinLit:stoa0329b.stoa002, since this is a different edition than the one on ToposText, currently classified as stoa001. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#568 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAOXEZTKOTMV3QJECDD6RE3Y7ED25AVCNFSM6AAAAABGTMMBKWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDANZXGI3DKMRWGU> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[ChiaraPalladino]

Oh thanks @PonteIneptique! Two things then:

• ToposText should change their urn, since stoa001 is already used to refer to the Cuntz edition in digilibLT.
• @AlisonBabeu, i'll let you decide what to do with the xml files. At this point we have two, one from digilibLT and mine. I prepared mine for research, so it can totally sit on my computer.

[AlisonBabeu]

hi @PonteIneptique good to hear from you! :)
and @ChiaraPalladino you wouldn't use urn:cts:latinLit:stoa0329b.stoa002 because that would imply a different work rather than a different edition. stoa0329b is the textgroup, but 001 is the work (and yes I know its weird because there is only one work for this textgroup). You would want to indicate a different edition by the final part of the URN.

So as Thibault has used stoa0329b.stoa001.stoa0329b.stoa001.digilibLT-lat1 to indicate this is the edition from the digilibLT you could use stoa0329b.stoa001.stoa0329b.stoa001.ogl-lat1 (if you wanted to include this as an Open Greek and Latin edition in Scaife).

Does that make sense?

[ChiaraPalladino]

Sorry @AlisonBabeu , i probably didn't explain this too well: I gave the option of using stoa002 before @PonteIneptique indicated that stoa001 already exists and points to the Cuntz edition. So yeah, definitely stoa0329b.stoa001 should be used for both mine and the digilibLT file. I'll name my file stoa0329b.stoa001.ogl-lat1, as you suggested.

However, Topostext uses stoa0329b.stoa001 to refer to a different edition, the one by Parthey and Pinder. That is not true at this point, since stoa0329b.stoa001 points to Cuntz. Is that correct?

[AlisonBabeu]

hi @ChiaraPalladino I think I didn't explain well either! :)
Typically 001, 002, and other numbers under a top level textgroup are only supposed to refer to entirely different works not different editions of the same work. Or in this case are you suggesting that these editions are so different that they are really different works?

[PonteIneptique]

If I may, maybe I can't? 😅, I would have no issue if the new edition would replace my old digiliblt version. Wouldn't it be fairer to digiliblt if this was digiliblt 1 (replaces the previous one) or digiliblt2, as they painfully digitized the thing years ago and this is the original xml that was used?

…

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024, 4:59 pm Alison Babeu, ***@***.***> wrote: hi @ChiaraPalladino <https://github.com/ChiaraPalladino> I think I didn't explain well either! :) Typically 001, 002, and other numbers under a top level textgroup are only supposed to refer to entirely different *works* not *different editions* of the *same work*. Or in this case are you suggesting that these editions are so different that they are really different works? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#568 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAOXEZSRUJPTMFYXFPE3JHTY7EK4DAVCNFSM6AAAAABGTMMBKWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDANZXGQ3DGMRUG4> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[lcerrato]

However, Topostext uses stoa0329b.stoa001 to refer to a different edition, the one by Parthey and Pinder. That is not true at this point, since stoa0329b.stoa001 points to Cuntz. Is that correct?

Topos doesn't specify an edition, do they? I cannot find any such specification there, which was what first confused me about their reference. I only see a work level ID.

[ChiaraPalladino]

However, Topostext uses stoa0329b.stoa001 to refer to a different edition, the one by Parthey and Pinder. That is not true at this point, since stoa0329b.stoa001 points to Cuntz. Is that correct?

Topos doesn't specify an edition, do they? I cannot find any such specification there, which was what first confused me about their reference. I only see a work level ID.

ToposText is using the Parthey and Pinder's edition, because their text comes from tabulapeutingeriana.de.

Re: the difference between the two editions: I would say it is quite big. They have a different citation system, consistently different spelling, and some parts of the itinerary are re-located elsewhere or even added in Cuntz.

Oh and to answer @PonteIneptique : I have zero issues implementing any naming suggestion, as long as we are all in agreement on what is what. I just did the clean-up and the citation system, digilibLT still made the first digitized version of Cuntz. I am going to add placename annotations later, but that doesn't mean much in this context.