[tei-council] listRelation membership in model.biblLike

[Lou Burnard]

It's not an argument in my book!

I am still waiting to learn what's the justification for making 
<listRelation> or <relation> members of model.biblLike.


On 04/06/13 16:22, Martin Holmes wrote:
> 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>
>>>
>>>