[tei-council] biblscope and imprint

[Lou Burnard]

OK. Seems like quite a lot of tagging, and I doubt if anyone will ever 
get it right, all the same. In cases like this, the pagination often 
runs across the volumes -- the December 1991 issue of this journal 
doesn't have over 380 pages!


On 02/11/12 15:11, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
> Gabby's right. I was focusing on placement of <biblScope> in relation to
> <imprint>.  So Lou's citation (from the Guidelines) would in fact be:
>
> <biblStruct>
>     <analytic>
>       <author>Chesnutt, David</author>
>       <title>Historical Editions in the States</title>
>       <biblScope type="pp">377–380</biblScope>
>     </analytic>
>     <monogr>
>       <title level="j">Computers and the Humanities</title>
>       <imprint>
>         <date when="1991-12">(December, 1991):</date>
>       </imprint>
>       <biblScope type="vol">25</biblScope>
>       <biblScope type="issue">6</biblScope>
>     </monogr>
> </biblStruct>
>
> On 11/2/2012 10:50 AM, Gabriel Bodard wrote:
>> Is that what we proposed?
>>
>> I thought I remembered we had suggested to put the biblScope in the
>> element whose scope is being defined by it, so<biblScope type="pp">
>> goes in<analytic>  because the article is only pages 377-380 of the
>> volume in question, and<biblScope type="issue">  goes in<monogr>
>> because this volume is only issue 25.6 of the journal....
>>
>> But looking at this stuff I find myself more and more agreeing with
>> Martin that biblStruct was never a good idea. ;-)
>>
>> G
>>
>> On 2012-11-02 14:29, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
>>> The ticket proposes putting<biblScope>s after the<imprint>  element
>>> when its present.  So your example would now be encoded as:
>>>
>>> <biblStruct>
>>>       <analytic>
>>>         <author>Chesnutt, David</author>
>>>         <title>Historical Editions in the States</title>
>>>       </analytic>
>>>       <monogr>
>>>         <title level="j">Computers and the Humanities</title>
>>>         <imprint>
>>>           <date when="1991-12">(December, 1991):</date>
>>>         </imprint>
>>>         <biblScope>25.6</biblScope>
>>>         <biblScope>377–380</biblScope>
>>>       </monogr>
>>> </biblStruct>
>>>
>>> --Kevin
>>>
>>> On 11/2/2012 7:02 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
>>>> Tootling across france on the train yesterday I started trying to deal
>>>> with http://purl.org/tei/FR/3555190...
>>>>
>>>> The part about the scope of biblscope was fairly easy to add, as was
>>>> guidance on usage of biblScope. But I hit a problem with the second
>>>> part, where it says that biblScope doesn't belong inside<imprint>   --
>>>> the logic behind that desire is impeccable, but it messes up an awful
>>>> lot of out current practice.
>>>>
>>>> Consider the following:
>>>>
>>>> <biblStruct>
>>>> <analytic>
>>>> <author>Chesnutt, David</author>
>>>> <title>Historical Editions in the States</title>
>>>> </analytic>
>>>> <monogr>
>>>> <title level="j">Computers and the Humanities</title>
>>>> <imprint>
>>>> <biblScope>25.6</biblScope>
>>>> <date when="1991-12">(December, 1991):</date>
>>>> <biblScope>377–380</biblScope>
>>>> </imprint>
>>>> </monogr>
>>>> </biblStruct>
>>>>
>>>> which is a fairly common pattern in P5 (and appears as the canonical
>>>> example for<imprint>)
>>>>
>>>> If, following FR 3555190, we think<biblStruct>   has no place within
>>>> <imprint>, how should
>>>> this, and many similar cases, be tagged?
>>>>
>>>> One possibility might be
>>>>
>>>> <monogr>
>>>> <title level="j">Computers and the Humanities</title>
>>>> <biblScope>25.6</biblScope>
>>>> <biblScope>377–380</biblScope>
>>>> <imprint>
>>>> <date when="1991-12">(December, 1991):</date>
>>>> </imprint>
>>>> </monogr>
>>>>
>>>> Another might be
>>>>
>>>> <monogr>
>>>> <title level="j">Computers and the Humanities</title>
>>>> <biblScope>25.6</biblScope>
>>>> <biblScope>377–380</biblScope>
>>>> <biblScope type="date">(December, 1991)</biblScope>
>>>> </imprint>
>>>> </monogr>
>>>>
>>>> or perhaps better
>>>>
>>>> <biblScope><date when="1991-12">(December, 1991)</date></biblScope>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another might be to tweak the content model so that
>>>> model.dateLike is permitted outside<imprint>   and alongside<biblScope>
>>>>
>>>> And another might be to reconsider the decision to remove<biblScope>
>>>> from within<imprint>
>>>>
>>>> Any ideas? Everyone braced for the rush of complaints?
>>>>
>>