[tei-council] biblscope and imprint
Martin Holmes
mholmes at uvic.ca
Sat Nov 3 21:13:05 EDT 2012
>
> Lou added an XML comment in the Guidelines (but didn't we agree in Paris
> to stop using these?)
We didn't say we'd stop using them, IIRC; we said we would sign and date
them, so it would be easier going forward to determine whether comments
were no longer of interest or relevance, and could be deleted.
So I think Lou should sign and date that comment. To answer his
question, I think the language subtag should be:
ru-Latn
for Russian in Latin script.
Cheers,
Martin
On 12-11-03 06:07 PM, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
> 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?
>>>>>>>>>
>>
More information about the tei-council
mailing list