[tei-council] addition of <availability>

[Martin Holmes]

Hi Fabio,

It is conceivable that a chapter of a book might have different 
availability criteria than the book that contains it (for instance, the 
first chapter may have been released freely online as a "taster", while 
the rest of the book is only available for purchase). So I think there 
is certainly justification for being able to distinguish between 
<availability> as it applies to <analytic> and as it applies to the 
containing <monogr> in the same <biblStruct>.

Cheers,
Martin

On 14-09-08 11:53 AM, Fabio Ciotti wrote:
>>
>> model.biblPart, <analytic> and <series>.
>>
>> We also decided that it should be added to <monogr> which is a more complex
>> element. But this element seems to have 2 places where it makes sense to
>> include it. I did both but can change it out before tonight.
>>
>> 1. as a generic entry, after the main bibliographic information, and just
>> before the model.notelike set of elements.
>>
>> 2. Inside <edition> - in case the availability of a particular edition is
>> not the same as the availability of the work as cited in the main part of
>> the entry.
>>
>> Questions: does this make sense? If so, should <availability> also be added
>> to <imprint> inside <monogr> ?
>
> I was wandering if it could be better to put <availability> only
> inside <biblStruct>. In fact each <biblStruct> contains the reference
> to a single item and is that item (whatever bibliographic level is)
> that is available under some rules. This is also the structure of MODS
> where <accessCondition> (the equivalnmet of <tei:availabilty>) is a
> top level element.
>
> Anyway I would avoid putting it inside <edition> or worse <imprint>.
>
>
> fabio
>
> PS reading the relevant chapters to answer your question I have had
> the feeling that bibliographic elements are very redundant and
> complex, and in a sense they are very "retro"... but maybe it's just a
> feeling.
>