[tei-council] listRelation membership in model.biblLike

[Martin Holmes]

On 13-06-04 02:50 PM, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
> The wording that confuses Martin was likely borrowed from my comment on
> the ticket:
>
> https://sourceforge.net/p/tei/feature-requests/310/#6aba
>
> I'll try rephrasing for clarity:
>
> "so that bibl, biblStruct, and biblFull can contain <relation> elements
> as children without needing to insert a <relationGrp> as a child of
> bibl, biblStruct, and biblFull and then putting the <relation> elements
> inside the <relationGrp>."

But <bibl> (for instance) _cannot_ contain <relation>, can it? And 
neither can <biblStruct> or <biblFull>. So if that was the intention, 
whatever was done didn't achieve it.

What has been achieved is to allow <listRelation> and <relationGrp> to 
appear wherever <bibl> et al can appear, which is something completely 
different. I'm as puzzled as Lou is by it. Sebastian's argument that 
weirder things pertain elsewhere in the TEI so we should leave well 
alone surely doesn't hold if this is a simple case of an error in ticket 
implementation.

Cheers,
Martin

>
> --K.
>
> On 6/4/2013 1:25 PM, Martin Holmes wrote:
>> 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>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
> .
>

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