I am interested in writing about three copies of the same item in the collection of Islamic material I am working on. This one particular text was originally composed the late 17th century in Persian and covers medical science; the three extant copies I have looked were written within two hundred years of the original. They differ across the main categories used to describe Islamic MS: historical (origin, content, provenance, etc.) and descriptive (script, binding, etc.) in a wide variety of ways. If the data they present can be mined and displayed properly, then various branches can spread out from them and encroach on a number of knowledge-spheres.
But I intend to approach the project in a new and different way, since my goal is to create various subject headings across these items. Traditionally, our ontology assumes a certain linear rigidity in the way we approach these items: study, list, and then compare the MS across these main categories. While this principle remains true and essential, it is also important to see how we display and learn from the information we can gather. In other words, our base assumptions of our ontology must be challenged and pushed, so as to turn the MS into an effective and dynamic pedagogical tool. This would mean not just listing the categories, but rather making them dynamic, versatile, and placed directly in the hands of the user. (here is a rough example; here is an article that discusses classification schemes in more detail).
This type of project requires preliminary preparation, including:
1. Perfect knowledge of the three copies at hand, including detailed historical, bibliographical, and descriptive data that covers important categories, including binding, paper, script, origin, provenance, content, etc.
2. Defining categories that are relevant and can extend beyond just the items under question; this again requires #1.
3. definite and ascertainable categories of definition that take into account the limitations of classification schemes and are open to further development.
4. permanent and stable classification schemes that can later be adjusted, and do not need to be radically re-defined.
5. history, history, history. Extensions into other knowledge-spheres might be initially limited, but such a project should be able to receive and sustain additional information that is incorporated into its classification scheme.
What I imagine is creating trees, charts, graphs, and other pedagogical tools through which the relevant categories can be tracked and studied. This does require some familiarity with digital tools and the current trends in digital humanities; in Islamic studies, DH is also a fairly recent development. Such a project, of course, will require collaboration between specialists in the digital world and the humanities.
Sabahat al-Khat :: A Manuscripter's Blog 