[tei-council] addition of <availability>

[Martin Holmes]

> I still vote for putting it
> as a top level inside <biblStruct> model.biblPart

Actually model.biblPart is not used in the content model of 
<biblStruct>; it's for <bibl>. <availability> is going to be in 
model.biblPart, but that won't help with <biblStruct> issues.

Cheers,
Martin

On 14-09-09 09:20 AM, Fabio Ciotti wrote:
>> 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
>