Missing transcription XML for TM 19960

[enury]

The page works well on papyri.info:
https://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.lond;2;178

But the link to the transcription leads to a 404 Error, resource not found:
https://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.lond;2;178/source

EDIT: I just found that the URL should actually be
https://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.lond;2;178a and https://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.lond;2;178a/source

Should the first one (https://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.lond;2;178) redirect to the second (https://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.lond;2;178a) ?

[samosafuz]

I'm not entirely sure why the https://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.lond;2;178 link works, or why it is aggregating TM and HGV metadata for both p.lond;2;178a and p.lond;2;178b.

There is no file p.lond.2.178.xml in the canonical DDB, and in the files of both HGV and DDB the relevant idno is consistently p.lond;2;178a or p.lond;2;178b. I have deleted an xml:id that points to p.lond.2.178 and will follow up, but if that doesn't work I am unable to explain why the numbers server makes https://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.lond;2;178 possible and will have to kick it up the food chain.

[samosafuz]

The version histories of both p.lond;2;178a and p.lond;2;178b indicate that these are new-ish files, created back in March (see, e.g. 4cfbd53), from an original (and now deprecated) file p.lond;2;178. I wonder, @jcowey, whether a reindex should solve this issue – but certainly there's been a re-index in the last nine months, no?

[enury]

So the numbers server creates the valid urls based on xml:id, right?

Does it also take into account the ref in BGU 3 729 ?

<ref n="chr.mitt;;167|p.lond;2;178" type="reprint-from">M.Chr. 167;cf P.Lond. 2 178</ref>

And in the source file of p.lond;2;178a there is a ref with no @n attribute and @type reprint-from, should it be reprint-in with @n pointing to BGU 3 729?

I had already noted some problems about the reprint-in/from redirections here, but I am not sure how to best correct them. I'd be happy to if someone points to guidelines of sorts!

[samosafuz]

The numbers server aggregates files based on the values of <idno> (which has more than one @type), and in this case I have confirmed that everything on that front is as it should be. The xml:id should not matter, as far as I know.

I am told that there will be a complete re-index of papyri.info in the next few weeks. We can revisit the issue then: my hope is that a re-index will solve the problem, since the data all appears to me to be correct.

As for the various problems in reprint-in/reprint-from, yes, there are inaccuracies and other issues throughout the DDbDP. I can provide brief instruction over Zoom to help you navigate: perhaps in the new year?

[enury]

As an addendum, I've tried to understand the order of reprint-in/from and this is what I got:

P.Lond. 2 178 = 1898, a and b = two duplicates, only one transcribed.
https://archive.org/details/greekpapyriinbri02brit/page/208/mode/2up

BGU 3 729 = 1903. same text as p.lond but with 4 additional lines at the start and end missing. Is it the transcription of another copy? It could be the untranscribed P.Lond. duplicate, but the line numbers don't match as the duplicate has supposedly 32 lines untranscribed and this one has 22 lines. I did not see the number 32 in the original P.Lond edition, they just say that the duplicate is imperfect at the end and that they transcribe the perfect copy. Image available.
https://archive.org/details/aegyptischeurkun312kn/page/n71/mode/2up

Chr. Mitt 167 = 1912/1963, same text as BGU 3 729.
https://archive.org/details/grundzgeundchr22wilc/page/178/mode/2up (=1963 reedition)

So if I understood correctly, the Chr.Mitt transcription is the latest version, quite possible the same as P.Lond. 2 178b, and should be available on papyri.info but it leads to an error page. P.Lond 2 178a is a different version and should also be online (I could not check the image due to the BL website current outage).

Maybe there has been another edition of the text later, but I saw no clues in the various XML files of the three publications.

[samosafuz]

For the purposes of disentangling these files and getting p.lond;2;178 to disappear entirely from PN, I've removed the reprint-in and reprint-from cross-references between p.lond;2;178[ab] and bgu;3;729, replacing them with a Bemerkung in the HGV file to the same effect. But the cross-reference to chr.mitt;;167 remains in the case of bgu;3;729: strictly speaking, we use reprint-in or reprint-from for re-editions or re-printing of a single text (and the edition of chr.mitt;;167 acknowledges that this is the Berlin papyrus) but not for duplicates or separate texts. The London papyri are examples of the latter, which is why I've removed them.