[tei-council] biblscope and imprint

[Lou Burnard]

I've now checked in a revised CO which I think addresses these concerns, 
but am leaving the ticket open till Gabby has also had a chance to check 
this out.



On 03/11/12 13:51, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
> Ugh, Gabby and I both misremembered the proposal at
> http://purl.org/tei/FR/3555190 .  Lou is right that according to that
> proposal, there is never a <biblScope> in <analytic>, so the Chestnutt
> citation encoded according to the proposal would be:
>
> <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 type="vol">25</biblScope>
>       <biblScope type="issue">6</biblScope>
>       <biblScope type="pp">377–380</biblScope>
>     </monogr>
> </biblStruct>
>
> (which is more or less how I first wrote it below).
>
> On 11/3/12 7:35 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
>> Looking at this suggestion again: surely it cannot ever be right to put
>> a <biblScope> within an <analytic> ?
>>
>> See further my comment on the ticket -- specifically
>>
>> "I think the sentence "Each <biblScope> describes where (within its
>> parent element) to find the thing in the previous level" is correct, but
>> only if you understand the word "level" as "preceding sibling of a
>> different bibliographic level"
>>
>> Hence the pagination biblScope ought to go within the monogr, not within
>> the analytic. This also makes sense if the same article appears in two
>> different monogrs, possibly with different pagination.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 02/11/12 18:14, Lou Burnard wrote:
>>> 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?
>>>>>>>