I asked the following "poll" question:
Should PG include the full details of the source document(s) used to produce every PG text?
Reading some other recent messages, they seem to imply that any new text submitted to PG which includes full source metadata, that info will now be kept in, when formerly it was stripped out? Is this true? If this is true, this is definitely good news. Since DP appears to include this data, the vast majority of new and future PG texts should now include this info. When the early PG texts are redone by DP at some future time, the world will now have the data available. (If I misread something, however, someone correct me.) But we are still faced with the issue of whether PG should require provenance metadata when the work is transcribed from a "paper/ink" original? Another question is if it should attempt, wherever possible, to reinsert the data into existing PG texts. (E.g., contact the submitters and ask them if they kept that data. DP has submitted thousands of texts -- they no doubt have the source information.) Jon Noring