[tei-council] biblscope and imprint
Lou Burnard
lou.burnard at retired.ox.ac.uk
Sun Nov 4 07:52:52 EST 2012
The comment was just a note to myself while I was going through that
section and I will remove it before closing the ticket. However it does
raise some interesting issues, which I have now had the leisure to
investigate further.
Firstly the comment that using "ru" for Russian transliterated in Roman
characters is simply "underspecified" seems to me rather to miss the
point. If I see something in a Unicode document which says it has
xml:lang="ru" I expect to see proper Russian Unicode characters.
Secondly, even if I am prepared to accept Romanized versions of those
characters and figure out for myself what the Russian should have been,
this is not entirely easy. There are several different (Wikipedia lists
ten) possible Romanization schemes, which vary quite considerably. In
some, for example, the sequence "ye" stands for the Russian letter that
looks like a Roman "e"; in others this character is represented by "e",
unless it is iotated by a preceding soft sign. So generating a correct
Cyrillic version of this citation isn't easy, and neither is deciding
which scheme we're dealing with here!
Thirdly, this particular example is actually taken verbatim from a
rather elderly ISO standard on bibliographic reference (ISO 690, 1987).
Hence we probably should not mess with its representation at all. (You
can see it cited as a example in the Wikipedia entry for ISO_690,
curiously enough). There is a new version of ISO 690 (from 2010) but I
don't have 140 swiss francs at my disposal to pay for a PDF download,
the libraries are all shut, and it's raining anyway ... so I can't see
whether or not this example has been updated to use what would
(presumably) be the current recommended transliteration scheme - ISO 9
(1995).
My guess, but I defer to the Russian expert in our midst, is that this
uses the now deprecated ISO/R:1968 but without access to the original,
it's hard to be sure, and without being sure I'd rather not try to
convert it into proper Russian.
All of which I suppose we can side-step cheerfully, by saying "ru-Latn",
even though this particular combination isn't actually proposed in
http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry, and even
though this won't help anyone who *does* want to see the original title
as it should have been presented!
On 04/11/12 01:13, Martin Holmes wrote:
>>
>> 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