[tei-council] addition of <availability>

[Syd Bauman]

With respect to <biblStruct>, <availability> goes inside:

 1. <series>, <analytic>, and <monogr> (as already implemented)

 2. <series> and <analytic>, but as a grandchild of <monogr>
    inside <imprint>

 3. <biblStruct>
  
 4. <biblStruct>, <series>, <analytic>, and <monogr>

 5. <biblStruct>, <series>, <analytic>, and <imprint>

 6. not allowed as a descendant of <biblStruct> this release, giving
    us time to figure out which of the above to do.

If I understand correctly:

 * Kevin and Martin favor #2

 * Fabio and Elli prefer #3, but are OK w/ #1

 * Lou, Syd, Sebastian, James, Hugh, Stefanie, Paul, and Peter have
   not indicated a preferences yet. HURRY!


> The numbers confuse me - are we at the point now where Martin and
> Kevin are in favor of <availability> as direct child of <series>
> and <analytic> and grandchild of <monogr> inside <imprint> ?
> 
> Kevin's switching seems backward, he seems to be asserting that he
> is switching to what he initially supported,
> 
> Fabio is in favor of <availability> should be permitted as a direct
> child of <biblStruct> (presumably along with model.noteLike, idno,
> model.ptrLike, relatedItem, and citedRange after the ultimate
> <monogr> or <series>), but not as a descendant of <series>,
> <monogr>, or <analytic>.
> 
> I am going along with Fabio,