[tei-council] biblscope and imprint

[Kevin Hawkins]

On 11/5/12 6:40 AM, Gabriel Bodard wrote:
> 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. :-|

Yes, Lou and I both confused either other on this.

> 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.)

My previous suggestion was to use some sort of pointer mechanism to tie 
a particular <analytic> to a particular <monogr>.

--Kevin