[tei-council] addendum to agenda (biblItem)

[Syd Bauman]

> As I will not be able to attend to conference call ...

Very sorry you won't make it.


  Note: I will try to cross-post the following to Sourceforge, as the
  bibliographic folks who wrote this paper can't read this list.


> - I have a strong intuition that the proposal based on biblItem is a  
>   good direction to go (a lot of things are made clearer)

I think I agree, but I'm not at all clear on how structured the
content of <biblItem> is supposed to be, and thus one whether it
should replace the current <biblStruct>, and if so should it be
called <biblItem> or <biblStruct>.


> - I do not see why there is a need for relatedBiblItem, where a
>   recursive biblItem (together with the attributes that are
>   contemplated) would do the trick, it seems.

Even in those situations where the <relatedBiblItem> is not nested
within the <biblItem> to which it's related, isn't the target=
attribute (which perhaps should be called related=) on <biblItem>
sufficient to show this relationship?


> My main arguments are:
> * design simplicity: why two objects with nearly the same semantics  
>   should be so much differentiated

> * practicality and coherence: if the relatedBiblItem objects are
>   described elsewhere in the same or another document, then they are
>   likely to be described as biblItem. They would thus change nature
>   depending on whether a reference to them is made in an inline way
>   (relatedBiblItem) or stand-off way (biblItem)