[tei-council] listRelation membership in model.biblLike

[Martin Holmes]

Now I read this, it doesn't make sense to me:

"so that bibl, biblStruct, and biblFull could contain
<relation> elements without needing to wrap these <relation> elements in 
<relationGrp>."

I wonder if things got confused on that ticket, and the wrong action was 
taken? This seems to be an argument for including <relation> in 
model.biblPart.

Cheers,
Martin

On 13-06-04 08:19 AM, Martin Holmes wrote:
>   From its first introduction (which I think you did), <listRelation> has
> always been a member of model.biblLike:
>
> <http://sourceforge.net/p/tei/code/9870/tree/trunk/P5/Source/Specs/listRelation.xml>
>
> This was by analogy with <relationGrp>, which it was replacing.
> <relationGrp> was added to model.biblLike at rev 9707 by Sebastian:
>
> r9707 | rahtz | 2011-11-09 03:46:08 -0800 (Wed, 09 Nov 2011) | 1 line
>
> make <relation> take @key/@ref (att.canonical) and put <relationGrp> in
> model.biblLike. TEI FR 3309894 refers
>
>
> That's now FR 310:
>
> <http://sourceforge.net/p/tei/feature-requests/310/>
>
> and it was done "so that bibl, biblStruct, and biblFull could contain
> <relation> elements without needing to wrap these <relation> elements in
> <relationGrp>."
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
>
>
> On 13-06-04 01:43 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
>> Looking at an unrelated  ticket, I have just noticed that <listRelation>
>> (along with the deprecated <relationGrp> which it replaces) is a member
>> of model.biblLike.
>> Can someone please remind me why? It's not remotely bibliographic, and
>> it will look very odd in most places where other members of the class
>> appear e.g. inside a <listBibl>
>>
>>
>

-- 
Martin Holmes
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
(mholmes at uvic.ca)