Welcome to the Schoenberg Database of Manuscripts (SDBM)! The SDBM aggregates observations of pre-modern manuscripts drawn from over 12,000 auction and sales catalogs, inventories, catalogs from institutional and private collections, and other sources that document sales and locations of these books from around the world.
Search the Database
Everyone is invited to search the database. Use the search bar below, or click the facets to the right.
Join Our Community! and gain access to all of the SDBM's NEW INTERACTIVE FEATURES
- Contribute Data, including your own personal observations of a manuscripts or group of manuscripts.
- Engage With Other Users to facilitate research and conversations about both the history of manuscript transmission and the data gathered in the process of recording this history.
- Manage Your Contributions, track your search history, bookmark, tag and download your results.
- Email or Download Search Results or export the entire contents of the SDBM for your own use under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 Unported License
- VIAF-based Name Authority (Read More)
- Enhanced Provenance data
- Create Groups to collaborate with other users
- Communicate with other users via private messages or public forum
- Browse the Seymour de Ricci Bibliotheca Britannica Manuscripta Digitized Archive
A group to for Hebrew name authority questions has just been added. Please join this new group if you have questions related to Hebrew names or would like to offer your expertise answering questions on this topic. We look forward to a fruitful collaboration.
All the best,
OK, thanks; I've edited that source now.
Currently, only users with Admin status may edit any Source in the database. I just advanced your user level to Admin, so now when you view SDBM_SOURCE_3656 you should see a blue link that says "Edit SDBM_SOURCE_3656" at the top of your screen. Let me know if you have any trouble.
I'm probably being dumb, but I can't see how to edit a Source in the legacy data. The online help documentation seems to suggest that users can only edit the sources that they have created.
To give a specific example: it has taken me some time and trouble to track down the catalogue that is represented by https://sdbm.library.upenn.edu/sources/3656, but if there is no easy way to share what I've found, I'm not likely to do so.
We are steadily making progress with the de Ricci data cleanup, and will tackle Bond & Faye once we complete the two de Ricci volumes. We were overly ambitious in our initial estimate of the time frame for completing this project.
I completely understand your concerns about including bad data in search results, but we believe it is more valuable to capture conversations about the bad data than to eliminate the data all together. Many legacy records, while containing misleading information, do contain snippets of good information as well. This is why we encourage commenting rather than deprecation, especially when there are no correct records to supersede the bad. We do place a warning label on all legacy data entries so that users know to exercise caution when reviewing these records.
If you encounter an entry so distorted that you think a correct record couldn’t exist, leave a comment. SDBM staff have a deep understanding of the data’s history, and are often able to trace the thought processes of past data entry persons. If we can’t find a solution, then we will consider deprecating the record.
Your response makes sense, but raises three questions:
- I thought that the de Ricci data was supposed to have been systematically corrected several months ago, and assumed that this would include Bond & Faye. Is this not the case?
- Wouldn't it be better to allow users to deprecate incorrect records, so as to remove misleading data and improve the overall reliability of the database, even if they don't have the time, energy, or access to a relevant catalogue, in order to provide a link to a correct record? I realise that users can add a comment, but this leaves the bad records in their search results. When a misleading record is deprecated, not deleted, nothing is actually lost, except easy access to it.
- Sometimes a record will be so garbled that it will not be possible to identify or create a correct record to replace it; in these cases should the incorrect one just remain un-deprecated forever, even though someone has identified it is wrong/misleading?