[tei-council] biblscope and imprint

Gabriel Bodard gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk
Mon Nov 5 06:40:41 EST 2012 

Just to be sure I understand what we're saying now:

  * Kevin and I had originally proposed to include in the analytic the 
page range taken up by it in the following monogr (and so forth; the 
volume-range of a monogr in the following series, ecc.);
  * Lou quite rightly pointed out that this is impossible because an 
analytic might appear in two different monogrs with different page 
numbering;
  * we are now proposing instead that a biblScope should be contained in 
the element that is being limited by it (e.g. in the monogr a subset of 
whose pages make up the preceding analytic).

Actually, looking at ticket http://purl.org/tei/FR/3555190, I see this 
is how we encoded the Schachter example, so the biblScope in analytic 
model was obviously already abandoned before August. So that's not the 
controversy at all. :-|

Kevin's markup below looks right to me, and I agree that biblScope 
doesn't belong in imprint, since the volume or page range is not part of 
the publication information. I'm looking slightly askance at the page, 
volume and issue biblScopes all being at the same level, but I can't 
think of any better way to do it.

I'm still concerned about our Schachter example on the ticket, however. 
I totally take Lou's point that 2 monogrs in a single biblStruct would 
normally mean the chapter/article appears twice in two different 
publications. How would we then mark up the case we have here, which is 
an article in a volume in a multi-vol monograph in a series?

(And how would you handle an article that appears in two different 
monographs, each part of a different series.)

The only way I can think of to handle both of these cases unambiguously 
would be to nest analytic, monogr and series as appropriate, but that 
would be a huge change to the way biblStruct currently works, so I 
suspect would not be at all popular.

(For the simpler case, however, I think we're all in agreement.)

G



On 2012-11-03 23:20, 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?
>>>>>>>>
>

-- 
Dr Gabriel BODARD
Researcher in Digital Epigraphy

Digital Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL

T: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
F: +44 (0)20 7848 2980
E: gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk

http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
http://www.currentepigraphy.org/

More information about the tei-council mailing list