Wikidata:Property proposal/Rahlfs Number
Rahlfs Number[edit]
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work
| Description | canonical number of a Septuagint manuscript according to Alfred Rahlfs's catalogue |
|---|---|
| Data type | External identifier |
| Domain | item |
| Allowed values | \w{1,4} |
| Example 1 | Codex Alexandrinus (Q318233)Rahlfs NumberA |
| Example 2 | Psalter with Catenae (Q25388188)Rahlfs Number13 |
| Example 3 | Berlin Genesis (Q24706443)Rahlfs Number911 |
| Source | https://septuaginta.uni-goettingen.de/ |
| Number of IDs in source | 1552 (currently; eventually 2300) |
| Expected completeness | eventually complete (Q21873974) |
| Formatter URL | https://septuaginta.uni-goettingen.de/catalogue/Ra_$1 |
| See also | Gregory-Aland-Number (P1577) |
| Single-value constraint | yes |
Motivation[edit]
Just like Gregory-Aland-Numbers are used to identify NT manuscripts (for which we have Gregory-Aland-Number (P1577)), the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) has canonical numbers. These were first assigned by Alfred Rahlfs (Q91042) in his 1914 catalogue (Rahlfs catalog (Q122984724)) and are used not only in scholarly literature but also in an online catalogue issued by the Göttinger Septuaginta-Unternehmen (Q1559829) in June 2023. The online catalogue is in its Beta phase and already has 1552 entries. The project has entered a second phase (until 2026) where the remaining manuscripts will be described, so that eventually all 2300 known manuscripts of the Septuagint will be covered.
The Septuagint catalogue has ample information on manuscript properties, holding institutions, material and textual aspects, scribes, possessors, bibliography and, last but not least, external IDs (to Trismegistos, LDAB and Diktyon). The database contents are distributed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 so we cannot scrape all their data, but we should definitely link to them.
I am currently running an OpenRefine project to match our items to this database. The project managers sent me a CSV file with 1599 entries which include some IDs that are (as of now) not present in the database but will be in the future. Here on Wikidata we have items for the more prominent manuscripts (52 in total), including all uncials and some papyri. Jonathan Groß (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Greece. Jonathan Groß (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Support Looks good to me. DerHexer (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)- Support --Epìdosis 14:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support ; am I understanding it right that a given Rahlfs number can match several manuscripts, but that a manuscript can only have one Rahlfs number ? --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Jahl de Vautban: Rahlfs's definition on what constitutes a single manuscript is different from the scheme used by Pinakes. To Rahlfs (and Gregory-Aland for that matter), a manuscript should be treated as a uniform object even if it's parts are housed in different places under different designations. Some manuscripts are scattered across dozens of places but the single leaves once belong to a single manuscript. This is the concept that Rahlfs and his successors are applying. Pinakes, contrary to that, starts from library catalogues and treats each manuscript as an item in and of itself. They usually display links to the other parts belonging to a manuscript at the top of each entry ("Cotes liees"). For now, I have just taken the IDs from the Rahlfs database and applied them to the Rahlfs items. For our data model I would suggest a hybrid approach where we create items both (1) for the manuscripts as described by Rahlfs and Gregory-Aland AND (2) for the manuscripts in the Pinakes database, which we can linked to one another with has part(s) (P527) and part of (P361) respectively.
:Thanks for bringing this up BTW! It is one of the many points I wish to discuss with the community. Jonathan Groß (talk) 06:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Jahl de Vautban: Rahlfs's definition on what constitutes a single manuscript is different from the scheme used by Pinakes. To Rahlfs (and Gregory-Aland for that matter), a manuscript should be treated as a uniform object even if it's parts are housed in different places under different designations. Some manuscripts are scattered across dozens of places but the single leaves once belong to a single manuscript. This is the concept that Rahlfs and his successors are applying. Pinakes, contrary to that, starts from library catalogues and treats each manuscript as an item in and of itself. They usually display links to the other parts belonging to a manuscript at the top of each entry ("Cotes liees"). For now, I have just taken the IDs from the Rahlfs database and applied them to the Rahlfs items. For our data model I would suggest a hybrid approach where we create items both (1) for the manuscripts as described by Rahlfs and Gregory-Aland AND (2) for the manuscripts in the Pinakes database, which we can linked to one another with has part(s) (P527) and part of (P361) respectively.
- Support --Sp!ros (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Jonathan Groß, DerHexer, Epìdosis, Marcus Cyron, Jahl de Vautban, Sp!ros:
Done: Rahlfs number (P12116). Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
