Remarks SN

Sources

• All the sources have been mapped and correctly identified as coming either from our DB or from the Cologne DB. I am currently double-checking them as some of these manuscripts moved from one library to another and I found double entries with distinguished places of conservation.
• I would suggest to make up a bit the various buttons which give access to these data and to the ‘N_Source_Codex_faust’. (I can do it myself).

• The data coming from Cologne should be distinguished from our data. For that purpose : Concerning the sources which come from Cologne and were not in our DB : their data, notably related to the ‘content’ and ‘remarks’, should only appear within the layout ‘N_Source_Codex_Faust’, in German, and not appear in the ‘Source_layout’ which is in english.
• At this stage, it is not clear – for external user- to determine the purpose of the buttons in ‘N_Source_Codex_faust’ : ‘Show’ and ‘Imported’.
• Same subject : would it be possible to have a more easy way to see which sources are coming from our DB and which ones come from Cologne ? At this stage, we already have the possibility of viewing our sources as a list thanks to the button ‘Sources list’ at the top left. The best would be to have a complete list with all the material + possibility of selecting within this material according to where there come from.
• In a general way : I would put the button ‘bibliography’ at the same level than that of ‘Sources’, ‘Recipes’, ‘Ingredients’, etc at the top right. Then I would put the button ‘ref to Cologne….’ next to ‘Show recipes’. I would also change this appellation (too long). Perhaps recall it ‘external
• 45 ticket From this button"Exteral references" (Cologne data) ,​ we should have then possibility of selecting within the other DB linked (even if at this stage we only integrated that of Cologne,​ we plan to integrate other tools),​ presented as a drop-down list.
• What is the purpose of the button ‘link to image’ (bottom right) ? We already have two buttons which link to digital images (per page) and to an overview of the various pages of the sources.
• RMK : at this stage, we still have a problem with this overview : we can only visualize the ten first pages
• The button ‘Show recipes with attachment’ should only appear in the ‘Recipes Layout’ –
• The button ‘Show all manuscripts’ already appears at the top left ‘Sources list’. The button ‘Show all mss with attachment’ could be put in another layout ‘All-Mss’, at the same level than ‘New entry’ and ‘Bibliography’ which should be moved in another place – see my commentaries above.

Recipes

• Again, is there a possibility to visualize what is coming from Cologne ?
• Concerning the recipes which are coming from Cologne and which have also been recorded in our DB, the transcription is not always the same and should be distinguished. I would suggest to put the Cologne transcription and commentaries in a separate layout – as you did for the metadata of the sources coming from Cologne. This would also avoid to have double entries.
• The layout ‘rezepte_Koeln’ should be maked-up in order to look like the other layouts.

Ingredients

• What is the purpose of the two buttons 'go to glossary' within the 'Ingredient layout'?

Ingredients List

• One single list of ingredients will be edited, resulting from my old glossary, the existing ingredient lists from CCT and the glossary from Cologne. This lists the ingredients according to their modern names in english. For the vegetal species, they are mentionned according to their botanical names, in order to avoid some confusions. I would suggest to use this list as a drop-down list in two rubrics of the ‘Recipe_layout’ : in the current ‘Ingredient_list’ and ‘C_ingredient’.
• A new layout, ‘Ingredient_list_new’ will also be related to these rubrics. It contains the modern appellation, some translation in german (data coming from Cologne) and other commentaries. For each ingredient, a ‘vis à vis’ button gives access to the ‘Ingredient_layout’.
• How will this layout be related with ‘Ingredients_layout’ and ‘Appellations_Layout’ ?

Bugs =

• I have found a 'bug': in the ingredient layout - only the first related historical appellation occurs - see for example 'ingredient' : Alum - you will just have 'alun' - the other recipes appear but not the historical appellation…..

-