I think this proposed change slipped out of the basket before the guillotine came down.... Not sure what we should do about this: the solution proposed below seems a bit ad hoc to me so input from other council members would be much appreciated. n message Laurent Romary writes: > Hi Lou, > Did you manage to implement the proposed content model change for > relatedItem: it do not see this in the schemas I get from Roma? > Best wishes, > Laurent > > Le 23 oct. 07 à 16:13, Lou Burnard a écrit : > > > > > This didnt get discussed during our call today, but should have been: > > > >>> 1. Use of relatedItem > >>> By definition relatedItem points to another bibliographical > >>> description to with the current one may be linked. In particular, > >>> it can be used to point to a volume from in which a paper has been > >>> published. Still, it is not possible to add any biblScope > >>> information in this case (cf. example below). Would it make sense > >>> to change this? > > > > This is the case where we want to say > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Stephan > >>> Moser > >>> > >>> > >>> Peter > >>> Stahl > >>> > >>> > >>> Werner > >>> Wegstein > >>> > >>> > >>> Norbert > >>> Richard > >>> Wolf > >>> > >>> Maschinelle Verarbeitung > >>> Altdeutscher Texte V (BeitrAdge zum > >>> FA|nften Internationalen Symposion, > >>> WA|rzburg, 4?6 MAdrz 1997) > >>> > >>> TA|bingen > >>> Niemeyer > >>> 2001 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 2. We are missing means to represent all types of affiliation > >>> information, typically: > >>> > >>> 2.a there is neither a "phoneNumber" element nor the possibility to > >>> type addressLine > >>> 2.b is not allowed in
, nor > >>> > >>> See the illustrating example below: > >>> > >>> > >>> Telikepalli > >>> Kavitha > >>> > >>> CSA Department > >>> Indian Institute of Science > >>>
> >>> Bangalore > >>> 560012 > >>> India > >>> +91-80-22932386 >>> addrLine> > >>> +91-80-23602911 > >>>
> >>>
> >>> kavitha@csa.iisc.ernet.in > >>>
> >>>
> >>> > >>> > >>> 3. It's a pity that we can have in affiliation, but not > >>> , since we may want to add extra information about > >>> organizations which are not information about the name proper (I > >>> know Lou will be sensible to this argument). Would we go in this > >>> direction, it would then be nice to have things like
in > >>> . > >>> By the way, it seems that and are highly > >>> redundant (even if is limited to manuscripts > >>> descriptions) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Max-Planck-Gesellschaft > >>>
> >>> Hofgartenstrasse 8 > >>> 80539 > >>> MA|nchen > >>> Deutschland > >>>
> >>>
> >>> > >>> Max-Planck-Institut fA|r Informatik > >>>
> >>> Stuhlsatzenhausweg 85 > >>> 66123 > >>> SaarbrA|cken > >>> Deutschland > >>>
> >>>
> >>> > >>> Algorithmen und KomplexitAdt > >>>
> >>> Stuhlsatzenhausweg 85, GebAdude E1 4 > >>> 66123 > >>> SaarbrA|cken > >>> Deutschland > >>>
> >>>
> >>> > >>> Too dreadful a practice for this open air. > >>> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> --- > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> tei-council mailing list > >> tei-council@lists.village.Virginia.EDU > >> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council > > > > _______________________________________________ > > tei-council mailing list > > tei-council@lists.village.Virginia.EDU > > http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council >