[tei-council] constraints on <publicationStmt>

[Lou Burnard]

I am pretty sure this was discussed extensively at Council before the 
change was introduced. The issue may be summarised as follows:
(a) publicationStmt contains multiple occurrences of th 
sometings-like-publisher and things-like-publication-details
(b) there is no grouping element to say which occurrences of the first 
class go with which occurrences of the second class, i.e. nothing 
corresponding with "act of publication"
(c) in its absence we rely on the ordering
So if something is published by snipcock and tweed at 12 Albemare St, 
and also distributed by the Oxford Text Archive with idno 345, we give 
the data in that order, and we know that as soon as we meet a second 
agency (the OTA in this case) we are talking about a second act of 
publication.

You may ask "why not use publicationStmt to do this grouping?" (since 
publicationStmt is repeatable). I can't remember, but I am pretty sure 
people didn't like that idea at all.

So, no, nothing to do with SGML ampersands. For once.


  On 30/09/14 19:35, Paul Schaffner wrote:
> Historically speaking, I imagine that need (or at least the perceived
> need) to choose a sequence arose when XML-ifying the SGML
> "&" operator in the P3 DTD. I.e., at the P4 stage
>
> (p+ | ( (publisher | distributor | authority) & (pubPlace?, address?,
> idno*, availability?, date?)+ )+ )
>
> pfs
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014, at 14:13, Fabio Ciotti wrote:
>> I don't see any reason for enforcing the sequence agency - detail
>> (leaving aside the fact that I would take away  <availability> from
>> here...).
>> It sounds like a sort of "presentational" way of modelling descriptive
>> metadata elements. For instance, in MODS <originInfo> children are a
>> repeatable choice.
>> And it's odd the the fact that agency is mandatory, since we can have
>> a lot of bibliographic item for which there is no publisher (or it's
>> unkonwn). Probably <date> should be seen as a more fundamental
>> element.
>>
>> Fabio
>>
>> 2014-09-30 0:03 GMT+02:00 Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz at it.ox.ac.uk>:
>>> On 29 Sep 2014, at 22:57, Paul Schaffner <PFSchaffner at umich.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think there is actually a rule for this (broken in this case), namely
>>>>
>>>> 4B6.5 "If a place of publication ... associated with an earlier
>>>> edition appears together with the actual place of publication ..
>>>> of the edition being described, transcribe the places as a single
>>>> element in the order in which they appear. [example:]
>>>> "Philadelphia printed, London reprinted."
>>>>
>>>> i.e.
>>>>
>>>> <pubPlace>Printed at London ; and reprinted at Glasgow : </pubPlace>
>>>> <publisher>by Robert Sanders...</publisher>
>>>
>>> hmm. this is problematic. When converted to valid TEI P5, it would come out as
>>>
>>>> <publisher>by Robert Sanders...</publisher>
>>>> <pubPlace>Printed at London ; and reprinted at Glasgow : </pubPlace>
>>>>
>>> which is a bit nonsensical.
>>>
>>> This mixture of transcription and controlled order of elements
>>> isn’t going to work. Bleeargh.
>>> --
>>> Sebastian Rahtz
>>> Director (Research) of Academic IT
>>> University of Oxford IT Services
>>> 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
>>>
>>> Não sou nada.
>>> Nunca serei nada.
>>> Não posso querer ser nada.
>>> À parte isso, tenho em mim todos os sonhos do mundo.
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>> -- 
>> 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