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

[Kevin Hawkins]

Fine by me.

On 4/26/2011 8:09 PM, Martin Holmes wrote:
> 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