[tei-council] bibliography

[Sebastian Rahtz]

Lou Burnard wrote:
> Sebastian has drawn my attention to the recently-announced 
> bibliography produced by the Education SIG, which is now under 
> editorship of Kevin Hawkins (see 
> http://www.tei-c.org/Activities/SIG/Education/tei_bibliography.xml). I 
> think this is potentially a suitable replacement for the current 
> Bibliography and have written to Kevin and Susan to ask whether they 
> are willing for me to incorporate a version of it in the Guidelines. 
> If they are I think that solves the major headache of producing (1)
Absolutely. This makes sense in many many ways. I don't know why we 
didn't think of it before.

The thing is CC-Sharealike as it stands, which means certain legal 
issues. I propose that we
not copy it at all, but simply link it in so that it appears in the 
output but not the source. Obviously
we help Kevin by cleaning the thing up, P5-ing it, and adding anything 
we have which he doesn't.

it will be a nice exercise for Lou to show how to properly markup what I 
do now
as

<ptr rend="transclude" 
ref="http://www.tei-c.org/Activities/SIG/Education/tei_bibliography.xml"/>

which he says is evil
>
> Turning to (2), there are 154 <bibl> elements within the body of the 
> Guidelines. Extracting these automatically into a separate file for 
> updating wouldn't be hard. I need someone to volunteer to  structure 
> that file consistently with the format adopted for (1), and of course 
> eliminate duplicates, check validity etc. I could then replace all 
> those <bibl>s with <ref>s, the target of which would either be in (1) 
> or a new (2), made for the purpose, containing referenced works not 
> related to markup or TEI.
I agree 100% that this is very desirable.  But I'd sacrifice it if it 
meant anything else to do with editing
not getting done. I am not sure I can do the volunteer task (depends on 
what else is on), but obviously
I can work on the formatting if we decide to do it.
>
> Producing proper bibliographic references for (3) would be much harder 
> however. There are 1872 <egXML> elements in the Guidelines. Even 
> discounting the 398 of these which are empty, and the unknown number 
> citing from the same source, that still leaves an awful lot of checking.
> Do we really think it would be worth the effort? I think the best we 
> can hope to do is provide a separate list of "works exemplified" 
> giving what little information we have, which needs to be pitched not 
> as a bibliographic tool but as a kind of "spot the source" crib.
>
I do think its worth cleaning up the source so that someone can do this 
work one day, if not now. Currently,
the info is largely in comments following an <egXML>, which is horrid to 
process and used inconsistently.
Unfortunately, <egXML> has no container into which we can slot the data. 
If we can find somewhere
to put it, moving that comment data which *is* bibl-like into a 
processable form would be a Good Thing.


-- 
Sebastian Rahtz      
Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431