[tei-council] listRelation membership in model.biblLike

[Martin Holmes]

I read that ticket through and I'm no wiser. I wonder if someone who 
worked on the ticket can remember in more detail what the thinking was?

On 13-06-04 10:17 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
> 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>
>>>>
>>>>
>