Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Journal "Back list" Tidying #14

Open
1 task done
ebeshero opened this issue Jan 24, 2023 · 4 comments
Open
1 task done

Journal "Back list" Tidying #14

ebeshero opened this issue Jan 24, 2023 · 4 comments
Assignees

Comments

@ebeshero
Copy link
Member

ebeshero commented Jan 24, 2023

During our Zoom session with @lmwilson, we discovered that most of the Journal "back list" proposed Site Index entries are incorporated in one of the staged si-local files to be added on the DM_SiteIndex repo. So here is an important task to help us get rid of old entries:

  • For each "back list" entry in the Journal file:

Look for it in this si-local.xml file:

If you find the entry, read it and compare to what you see in the Journal.
If it is the same or better, remove the entry in the Journal backlist.

If the si-local's entry is NOT the same or less detailed, missing something, leave the entry in the back list.

If you notice obvious typos or correction on the si-local.xml, check out a branch of the DM_SiteIndex repo, and make correction and issue a Pull Request, assigning to @lmwilson and @ebeshero to review.

For any questions that come up, comment here on this Issue.

@ebeshero
Copy link
Member Author

ebeshero commented Mar 14, 2023

@SavannahRicks Here is a sample updated back list entry that we are "remodeling" so that it provides a) the info it's missing from si-local, and b) more data about the specific journal entry it's referencing. Let's preserve the <!--update existing--> comments.

  <bibl xml:id="Remarks_Italy">    <!-- srr: Different desc here than in local Index -->
                  <!--update existing-->
                  <title level="m">Remarks on Antiquities, Arts, and Letters, During an Excursion in Italy, in the Years 1802 and 1803.</title>
                  <author ref="#Forsyth_Jos">Joseph Forsyth</author>
                  <date when="1816">1816</date>
                  <pubPlace>
                     <placeName ref="#London_city">London</placeName>
                  </pubPlace>
                  <publisher>J. Murray</publisher>
                  <note resp="#lmw">Mitford records she was <quote>charmed with
                     it</quote> in <ref target="#e-40">her journal entry of <date when="1819-02-15">Monday 15 February 1819</date></ref>.</note>
               </bibl>

@SavannahRicks
Copy link
Contributor

SavannahRicks commented Apr 4, 2023

I have completed de-duping the back list of any repeating ID's and have come across some discrepancies:

listOrg:

  • Newberrys or Newberys?

listPersons:

  • Robinson_Mary or Robinson_MaryD
  • are FarquharsonG and Farquhar_George the same person?
  • are Comber_Thos and Comer_Mr the same person?
  • deChaboulon in the journal is the exact def. as de_Chaboulon in local SI
  • Nichols_JB and Nicholls_John?
  • Brunton_Alex and Brunton_Alexander?
  • BarrowJ and Barrow_John?
  • could BrookeFrances be Brooke_Miss or Brooke_Mrs?
  • Brown_DrT and Brown_Thos?
  • KingWm and King_Wm
  • Armstrong_Mr and Armstrong_Mr
  • Dearesley_Mr and Dearsley_Wm
  • Maitland_Mr and Maitland_Eb
  • whats going on with Ogbourn_Miss

serial_MRM:

  • Times_Papers or Times_news?
  • MonthlyMag or New_Monthly_Mag?
  • EdinburghRev or EdinburghRev_per?

UPDATE by @SavannahRicks 5/8/23:
I went over all of these back entries again and solved some of them, but I need more context in order to do the rest.

@SavannahRicks
Copy link
Contributor

SavannahRicks commented Apr 4, 2023

While going back to reference Mitford's ratings on books she's read in the back entries work_MRM I have found a few discrepancies. This comment will update as I continue working on this task.

work_MRM:

  • the back desc for Women_CM says that Mitford rated one way but when I referenced it I found that it was incorrect
  • Found a discrepancy with Mems_Montrose in entry #e-352, not found in transcript or handwritten journal

@ebeshero
Copy link
Member Author

ebeshero commented Apr 5, 2023

@SavannahRicks We took care of the second issue today when we met.
For the first one, you should go ahead and correct the back desc for Women_CM.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants