[tei-council] addition of <availability>

[Mylonas, Elli]

Given the lively discussion we are having now, I think we may want to
revisit the role of <availability> in <monogr>.

Kevin would like to allow <availability> only in <imprint> within <monogr>
and Fabio/Martin et al. suggest that it be in <biblStruct> and not in
<monogr>

We have a freeze tomorrow, but I can
a) remove things from <monogr> that weren't there to begin with and open a
new ticket about <monogr> alone,

b) leave things as is, and open a new ticket.

Not sure about protocol related to backing out of a change after a freeze.

thanks, --elli

On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Martin Holmes <mholmes at uvic.ca> wrote:

> On 14-09-08 12:52 PM, Fabio Ciotti wrote:
> > Hi Martin,
> >
> >> 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>.
> >
> > Yes I do agree. My point is that <biblStruct> contains the reference
> > to the chapter not to the monograph. As I understand the actual
> > situation if you want to put the monograph in the bibliography as a
> > distinct item you should add a distinct <biblStruct> from that with
> > the <analytic> description. So if you need to state anything about the
> > availability of the monograph it should go inside that second
> > <biblStruct>. En passant, it is obvious that this is very redundant
> > and that a more appropriate way of encoding this should give the
> > possibility to factorize the <monograph> and allow for pointers in the
> > analytic level (this is in fact possible since <monograph> has the
> > linking atts, but its content model requires the presence of at lest
> > <title> and <imprint>).
>
> Good point. So in a case where someone is including only one
> <biblStruct> for a chapter, you don't think it should be possible or
> necessary to provide information about the availability of the
> containing monograph. That's OK with me.
>
> If I liked <biblStruct> at all, I'd definitely be on your side with
> regard to the need to be able to point out to an external container
> rather than (as we often see) reproducing the same <monogr> multiple
> times in a <listBibl>. I've used XInclude for this in the past.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> > f
> >
> --
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>
> PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived
>