[tei-council] Ticket #2976715 -- abandon it?

[Martin Holmes]

I took on ticket #2976715 last week, and followed the council's 
recommendation (adding <distributor> to model.respLike), only to have 
numerous tests fail because <distributor> then ends up in the content 
model of various elements through two distinct routes.

I've since spent a lot of time trying to figure out a simple way to 
implement the desired change, and I don't see any easy way to do it. I 
also notice that the actual change we agreed to (add <distributor> to 
model.respLike) was actually only a preliminary step in a proposed 
method of making the following elements:

<principal>
<funder>
<sponsor>

available in <analytic>, <monogr> and <series>. However, the second step 
in the proposal on the ticket, that "model.respLike be added to 
<analytic>, <monogr> and <series>, so that these elements are available 
in <biblStruct> citations", was not agreed to by council in any case.

So I think we're in a bit of a mess, all in all. I think the following 
things:

1. <distributor> does belong in model.respLike, along with <principal> 
et al., but there's no way to get it there without making significant 
structural changes. (Meanwhile, Kevin believes that neither 
<distributor> nor <funder> should be in model.respLike anyway.)

2. model.respLike does belong in <analytic> et al., but council doesn't 
think so, and in any case this would be hard to achieve.

3. The content model of <biblStruct> and its children is a big mess, 
largely due to historical factors and subsequent tinkering, and the only 
way to deal with it will be to start from scratch, with a more logical 
set of model classes. This would inevitably break the Birnbaum doctrine.

So I propose closing this ticket without action, since I opened it in 
the first place, and only Kevin, Lou and I seem to care about it.

All in favour say aye!

Cheers,
Martin
-- 
Martin Holmes
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
(mholmes at uvic.ca)