[tei-council] [TEI-notify] SF.net SVN: tei:[11278] trunk/P5/Source/Guidelines/en/CO-CoreElements.xml

[Kevin Hawkins]

On 12/29/12 8:14 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
> On 29/12/12 04:31, kshawkin at users.sourceforge.net wrote:
>> Revision: 11278
>>             http://tei.svn.sourceforge.net/tei/?rev=11278&view=rev
>> Author:   kshawkin
>> Date:     2012-12-29 04:31:24 +0000 (Sat, 29 Dec 2012)
>> Log Message:
>> -----------
>> fixed bug 3585939 plus some corrections related to incomplete implementation at revisions 7427, 7521, and 7964 of biblio document circulated on tei-council on 2012-04-24
>>
>> Modified Paths:
>> --------------
>>       trunk/P5/Source/Guidelines/en/CO-CoreElements.xml
>>
>
> This change seems to have introduced an inconsistency between what the
> prose of the Guidelines says and what the examples do. The prose says
> that it is not necessary to add a @level attribute to title when the
> level can be inferred from the parent element (<analytic> <monogr> etc)
> and gives an example which explicitly says that this attribute has been
> omitted, even though it is in fact present (the Merlin one).

Actually, the prose no longer says this (see below), so in this latest 
commit I corrected the example so that the Merlin example no longer has 
an inferred value of @level.

> A sentence has been added earlier saying that we recommend always
> supplying the @level attribute, which I don't recall our having
> discussed as such.

Following the sentence "When it appears directly within an 
<gi>analytic</gi>, <gi>monogr</gi>, or <gi>series</gi> element, 
<gi>title</gi> is interpreted as belonging to the appropriate level.", 
the Guidelines used to say:

When it appears elsewhere, its <att>level</att> attribute should be used 
to signal its bibliographic level.

But at revision 7964, Lou changed it to:

However, it is recommended that the <att>level</att> attribute should 
always be used to signal this explicitly

This was one of the changes recommended in the biblio document 
circulated on tei-council on 2012-04-24 ( 
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/pipermail/tei-council/2010/011823.html 
), which Lou selectively implemented in revisions 7427, 7521, and 7964 
and then sent back to Martin, Laurent, and me to rework what remained 
(which we've been doing over the past few years in various tickets).

 > It seems an unnecessary redundancy (sorry for the
> pleonasm but you know what I mean) to me, but in any case we ought to
> decide what the status of this "recommendation" is. If  @level is not
> mandatory on <title> (which it currently isn't) then we ought to explain
> in what circs it can be omitted, and how its absence is to be
> interpreted, (as we currently do more or less). And we ought to have
> some examples showing it being omitted, obv.

One of the principles in the biblio document was to be explicit in the 
markup for ease of processing.  We were focused on use of @level on 
<title> when <title> occurs in bibl*, not elsewhere in a document. 
While I added @level to all <title>s in <biblStruct>s, I left a few 
<titles> without @level in <bibl>s.