Some questions concerning the metadata template
Closed this issue · 1 comments
-
The main problem is the ingredients of the recipe. In the folios in Google Drive, the materials in the recipes just marked by the “m” code which I assume to be materials. The instruments in the recipe are not marked as the same. However, some marked materials seems ambiguous concerning its status in the recipes. They are not ingredients, and also can not count into instruments. For example the water for soaking (p074v_2), marble used to put materials on when burnishing (p075r_2, p078v_1,p078v_4), charcoal or manual or dung used for heating (p074r_3, p076r_1, p078r_3), paper or cards used when crushing (p077r_a4), wood or tooth used, for burnishing (p074v_3, p078v_1, p078v_2).
-
Concerning the problem above, is it necessary to change the ingredients to materials, or add another category as instruments?
When it come to the recipes on mechanism (p080r_3), and preparing sand, earth, plaster for casting(p081r), it seem that the techniques and instruments are more important than “ingredients”. “Ingredient” in each of these recipes always just include one or two, while it need to be beaten by something, soaked by water, dried by some kind of fire. These should be more important information (though not perfect fit in to the category of “instrument”) in such kinds of recipes. -
When the ingredients in the recipe mention an alternative, should we count it as one or two?
-
How specificity should the final products be describe, the titles of the recipes sometimes indicate the final products as yellow varnish, red gum, green wood, etc. Should we just categorize them as varnish, or should we make the final products as specific as possible?
-
The end products of some medical recipes is hard to describe, like the case in p077r_a1 (wearing a lead cap or mask), p079v_2 (take something in front when working with hazardous metals).