[tei-council] biblscope and imprint

[Kevin Hawkins]

I've looked over:

http://tei.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/tei/trunk/P5/Source/Guidelines/en/CO-CoreElements.xml?r1=11111&r2=11110&pathrev=11111

and it looks good to me, though I agree that we should wait on Gabby. 
Lou, you might also post a comment on the ticket for the benefit of John 
McCaskey and Laurent, who may be following this ticket's progress.

Lou added an XML comment in the Guidelines (but didn't we agree in Paris 
to stop using these?) at:

http://tei.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/tei/trunk/P5/Source/Guidelines/en/CO-CoreElements.xml?r1=11111&r2=11110&pathrev=11111

asking whether "ru" is the correct value for @xml:lang for Russian 
written in roman letters.  BCP 47 does not say that a script subtag must 
be used if a language is written in a script that is not the usual one, 
so I believe use of "ru" is correct though it underspecifies.  If you 
like, you could change to "ru-Latn".

--Kevin

On 11/3/12 7:20 PM, Lou Burnard wrote:
> 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?
>>>>>>>>
>