Diese Seite ist aus Gründen der Barrierefreiheit optimiert für aktuelle Browser. Sollten Sie einen älteren Browser verwenden, kann es zu Einschränkungen der Darstellung und Benutzbarkeit der Website kommen!
zur Startseite



describes the type of authentification used on the document.

General Comment:

Attributes: id, lang

Part of: physicalDesc , witness

Contains: sealDesc , notariusSign , notariusSub , subscriptio , chirograph , pict

<p>The charters bears no trace of the announced seal.</p>
<sealDesc n="1">1: Siegel des Friedrich von Hohenberg, rotes Wachs, stark beschädigt, <legend>Fridericus [.......]</legend></sealDesc>
<sealDesc n="2">2: Siegel des Kloster S. Maria, verloren, nur noch Pressel vorhanden</sealDesc>


<material>parchment, 10x12 inch</material>
<auth><sealDesc>I (<sigillant>Raimund de Mevolhon, Bischof von Gap (1282-1289)</sigillant>), II. (<sigillant>Romanus, Bischof von Epirus (1286-1298)</sigillant>), III. (<sigillant>Waldebrunus, Bischof von Vlorä und Glabinitza</sigillant>), IV. (<sigillant>Leo, Bischof von Calamon</sigillant>), V. (<sigillant>Thomas, Bischof von Acerra</sigillant>) Siegel von Seidenschnüren abgerissen.</sealDesc> — <sealDesc>VI. S. des <sigillant>Bischofs Leotherius von Veroli</sigillant> an Seidenschnur beschädigt, in Maltha, spitzoval. Umschr.: <legend>S. L     RVL ....</legend> Auf der Rückseite das Signet undeutlich.</sealDesc> — <sealDesc>VII. S. d. <sigillant>Bischofs Ägidius v. Tortiboli</sigillant> etwas beschädigt, spitzoval, in Maltha, III A 2 a. Umschr.: <legend>† EPI . S . EGIDII DEI .... TIBVR . </legend></sealDesc> — <sealDesc>VIII. S. d. <sigillant>Bischofs Perronus v. Larino</sigillant> sehr beschädigt, spitzoval, in Maltha. Umschr.: <legend>. . PERRONI</legend></sealDesc></auth>



is to generic
I would suggest authDesc (describes the type of authentication) or authSeal, authWit, etc., with one separate element for each type of authentication
(Luciana Duranti, 2007-02-18 10:54:02)


Authentication is the act or mode of giving authority or legal authenticity to a record, instrument, statute, or a certified copy thereof. These are the primary methods of authentication: 1) an act or instrument may be executed and acknowledged by the signers before a notary or public officer authorized to fulfill such a function (in this case the notary witnesses the instrument) 2) an act or instrument may be executed by a notary and certified by its affidavit or special sign (i.e. the notary is the author) 3) an act or instrument may be executed by the author before witnesses and acknowledged by their signatures ("sealed, signed and delivered in front of ...") 4) an act or instrument issued by a public authority may be acknowledged by the signum manus of such authority (e.g. the R in Rex written by the hand of British Kings) 5) an act or instrument may be testified by a seal (attached, appended or embossed). The digital signature (which MoReq2 specifically discusses) is a seal, not a signature. It is functionally equivalent to medieval seals, which were not only a means of verifying the origin of the record and the fact that it was intact, but also made the record indisputable and incontestable, that is, had a non-repudiation function. The analogy is not perfect, because the medieval seal was associated exclusively with a person, while the digital signature is associated with a given person and a specific record, and because the former is an expression of authority, while the latter is only a mathematical expression. 6) an act or instrument may be authenticated, after having been issued, by the authority of a competent magistrate who attests that the instrument is in due form of law 7) a copy of an act or instrument may be certified as authentic by the officer keeping or preserving the act or instrument as part of his duties 8) an act or instrument may be authenticated by introduction of evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that it is the entity that the proponents claims it to be
(Luciana Duranti, 2007-02-22 11:42:15)

Impressum - Datenschutz - Kontakt