Discuss definition of <hand>

[gucl-mu]

As mentioned in the last IG meeting, the definition of hand is very contradictory. Several points need to be clarified:

1. Should hand actually continue to serve for the scribe as well as for the description of the characteristics of a scribe? I think that the description of the scribe's profile should be described at another point, even in the case of unknown scribes. (When encoding the music text, there are the attributes @hand for reference and @character for description. I.e. there is also a separation of information there.
2. Currently, @resp is an attribute in the text whose function is similar everywhere. In this case, the researcher who identified the scribe is to be distinguished. This is redundant, in my opinion. In this context, it would probably be more important to refer to the scribe at least with @corresp. Should @auth, @auth.uri and @codedval be added here?
3. @initial it needs a definition here whether it is a temporal reference of the first scribe who made the manuscript or the first scribe's hand appearing in the manuscript.

[gucl-mu]

To distinguish between the scribe hand and the characteristics, I think a broader use of <scriptDesc> or <scriptNote> would be helpful: #15

[riedde]

relates to #7