[tei-council] addition of <availability>

[Martin Holmes]

Hi Elli,

Anything to do with <biblStruct> is always thorny. But I think one thing 
we should probably not do is to introduce an element in a new place only 
to remove it in a subsequent release after more debate. So it might be 
prudent to remove any remotely controversial changes from this release, 
and open up the ticket again for us to deal with at the face-to-face.

On the other hand, you might just want to allow it everywhere anyone 
wants it, put that in the release and walk away with relief from a fait 
accompli. :-)

Cheers,
Martin

On 14-09-08 08:44 PM, Mylonas, Elli wrote:
> 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
>>