[tei-council] bibliog doc

Laurent Romary laurent.romary at inria.fr
Wed May 19 11:22:45 EDT 2010

I would not necessarily slim down the core just on this issue. Let us  
wait until we have an master plan of a set of reduce-sized modules. SO  
let us wait a while...
Laurent (from Malte)

Le 19 mai 10 à 17:14, Lou Burnard a écrit :

> Another suggestion, which probably wont  make me any friends, might be
> to hive biblStruct and biblFull off to a chapter  of their own. We  
> might
> even go so far as to take them out of the core and put them in their
> very own module. Yes that would cause all existing ODDs using them to
> crash and burn, but it would slim the core down a bit, which has long
> been a desideratum.
>  Martin Holmes wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>>> 2. I revised the additional material proposed for the end of  
>>>> section
>>>> 3.? as follows:
>>>> <p>The most commonly used elements in the model.biblLike class are
>>>> <gi>biblStruct</gi>  and<gi>bibl</gi>.<gi>biblStruct</gi>  will
>>>> usually be easier to process mechanically than<gi>bibl</gi>   
>>>> because
>>>> its structure is more constrained and predictable. It is suited to
>>>> situations in which the objective is to represent bibliographic
>>>> information for machine processing directly by other
>>>> systems or after conversion to some other bibliographic markup  
>>>> formats
>>>> such as BibTeXML or MODS. Punctuation delimiting the components  
>>>> of a
>>>> print citation is not permitted directly within a<gi>biblStruct</ 
>>>> gi>
>>>> element; instead, the presence and order of child elements must  
>>>> be used to
>>>> reconstruct the punctuation required by a particular style.
>>>> <!--While<gi>biblStruct</gi>  offers enough
>>>> flexibility for encoding bibliographic references to simple print
>>>> works, for many documents, especially electronic ones, it proves
>>>> problematic.-->  <!-- no problems presented -->
>>>> </p>
>>>> <p>By contrast,<gi>bibl</gi>  allows for considerable flexibility  
>>>> in
>>>> that it can include both delimiting punctuation and unmarked-up  
>>>> text;
>>>> and its constituents can also be ordered in any way. This makes it
>>>> suitable for marking up bibliographies in existing documents,  
>>>> where it
>>>> is considered important to preserve the form of references in the
>>>> original document, while also distinguishing important pieces of
>>>> information such as authors, dates, publishers, and so
>>>> on.<gi>bibl</gi>  may also be useful when encoding<soCalled>born
>>>> digital</soCalled>  documents which require use of a specific style
>>>> guide when rendering the content<!-- why is this true of born  
>>>> digital
>>>> dox in particular? -->; its flexibility makes it easier to  
>>>> provide all
>>>> the information for a reference in the exact sequence required by  
>>>> the
>>>> target rendering, including any necessary punctuation and linking
>>>> words, rather than using an XSLT stylesheet or similar to reorder  
>>>> and
>>>> punctuate the data.<!-- tough if you later want it in a different
>>>> form for another rendering engine of course -->  </p>
>>> Lou wants a clearer rationale here.
>>> Martin's done a good job of explaining his rationale, but let me try
>>> stating this in different terms just in case it alleviates  
>>> confusion over
>>> Martin's use of "electronic" documents and "born-digital" ones.
>>> I believe Martin envisions two approaches to encoding bibliographic
>>> citations given in a source document:
>>> a) You want to represent the source document as it is, even if it  
>>> has
>>> inconsistencies in it.
>>> b) You want to impose structure on the citations to catch errors  
>>> and allow
>>> you to format the citations according to various style guides (MLA,
>>> Chicago, APA, etc.) automatically by displaying the content of  
>>> various
>>> bibl/biblStruct/biblFull child elements in different orders.  This  
>>> is the
>>> born-digital case in the second paragraph: you're creating a new TEI
>>> document for which there's no print source to be represented.
>>> If you're doing (a), you basically have to use<bibl>.
>>> If you're doing (b), people are generally inclined to use  
>>> biblStruct, but
>>> Martin argues in this document (and at the symposium in Dublin)  
>>> that it's
>>> more practical to use bibl.  As described in the first paragraph,  
>>> he has
>>> found that citations to electronic works are often quite  
>>> complicated in
>>> structure and that if you try to use biblStruct, it will be quite
>>> difficult to format according to the rules of MLA, Chicago, APA,  
>>> etc.
>>> Martin, chime in if I got this wrong.
>> That's exactly my point, expressed more clearly than I've managed to
>> express it so far myself. My worry is that we push people into using
>> <biblStruct> when <bibl> would actually be more suitable, simply  
>> because
>> of the weight of examples of <biblStruct> and the absence of any
>> encouragement to think about <bibl> as a more practical alternative.
>>>> 3. Use of persName inside biblStruct
>>>> <!-- Name markup is essential for proper
>>>> indexing and other forms of processing. It
>>>> seems advisable that all biblStruct examples
>>>> use it, since the purpose of biblStruct is to
>>>> provide a highly-structured reference. -->
>>>> While this may be true, it presents us with quite a problem in  
>>>> terms
>>>> of house style. Usually we try not to use elements from one  
>>>> module in
>>>> examples appearing in a chapter which describes another. In the few
>>>> rare exceptions, we make quite a song and dance about the need to
>>>> include the other module etc. But biblStruct and friends are
>>>> described in the core module, whereas the<persName>  etc. elements
>>>> are described in names and dates. (That incidentally is why  
>>>> the<name>
>>>> element was originally used in some of these examples -- name is
>>>> available in the core). So, while I am perfectly to change some  
>>>> of the
>>>> examples to indicate what you propose as appropriate use of the
>>>> naming elements, I don't think it should be done uniformly. I fear
>>>> this needs more mulling over.
>>> Yes indeed.  In the summary of our proposal to Council, Martin,  
>>> Laurent,
>>> and I asserted in principle 1 that if you use biblStruct, you really
>>> should use the Names and Dates module.  Council agreed to this.   
>>> If we
>>> don't change all of the examples to reflect this, it needs to be  
>>> as clear
>>> as possible to readers why this is the case.
>> This issue is similar to the one above: if we assume (and my  
>> experience
>> suggests this is true) that most users, at least in the early  
>> stages of
>> using TEI, will tend to copy-paste examples from the Guidelines and
>> adapt them, then we ought to avoid providing examples which will not
>> work very well for them in real projects. A <biblStruct> whose name
>> components are not marked up is not very useful for its intended  
>> purpose
>> -- automated processing and interchange.
>> I'd suggest that we add a section on "Name encoding in  
>> bibliographical
>> references", fairly early in the chapter, to clarify this. Does that
>> make sense?
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

Laurent Romary
laurent.romary at inria.fr

More information about the tei-council mailing list