[tei-council] addition of <availability>

[Fabio Ciotti]

> On 14-09-09 08:31 AM, Syd Bauman wrote:
>> Well, we *have* already discussed it at a face-to-face, but
>> apparently we didn't do anywhere near a thorough enough job.

There is always space for more discussion.... ;-)


> Having re-read the ticket, I'm not sure about that. It would mean that
> <availability> is not available anywhere in <biblStruct>. Council
> already agreed that it should be in <analytic>, <series> and <monogr>.
> Elli decided also to put it in <edition>, but I think we could roll that
> one back on the basis that we haven't had a chance to discuss it, and it
> may not be necessary given the other locations it will be available.
>
> There's no dispute about <analytic> and <series>, so we should implement
> those as we decided. The remaining issue is only about where it should
> go in <monogr>, so I'd suggest deciding right now by email whether it
> should go directly in <monogr> or in <imprint>, as Kevin argues. If we
> can't decide, then we should hold off on the decision about <monogr>,
> but still put it in <analytic> and <series> for now.
>
> Let's have a quick poll, in case it turns out we're all actually in
> agreement anyway:
>
> Kevin says that "Since <publicationStmt> is akin to <imprint> just as
> <editionStmt> is akin to <edition>, I suggest that if we want to support
> use of <availability> inside <monogr>, it should be allowed only as a
> child of <imprint>, which contains information relating to "[. . .]
> distribution of a bibliographic item". Just as bibliographies sometimes
> describe editions and sometimes copies, bibliographic items may be
> editions or copies."
>
> I find that quite convincing, so I vote for <availability> as a child of
> <imprint> and not a direct child of <monogr> (since a <monogr> must
> always have an <imprint>).

I do not agree since in any bibliograhic metadata schema that kind of
info goes in the notes area or is a  top level element, but definitely
it is not part of  the publication area (ex in MARC21 is 506 or 540
and in MODS or DC is a top level element). I still vote for putting it
as a top level inside <biblStruct> model.biblPart, since in that way
we can say that the particular item object of the bibliographic
description is under certain access condition without going the Occam
razor rule.

f