[tei-council] Ticket #2976715 -- abandon it?
mholmes at uvic.ca
Tue Apr 26 20:09:12 EDT 2011
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:
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
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!
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
(mholmes at uvic.ca)
More information about the tei-council