#152 title/@level not fully comprehensive

AMBER
closed
nobody
5
2010-01-18
2010-01-15
Ian Rons
No

The current legal values for title/@level do not fully encompass the range of possibilities, in particular it isn't really possible to refer to an item by its catalogue entry. @level="u" comes close, but that is intended for unpublished dissertations and would be doing double time. It would be better to have something like @level="c" to specify a catalogue entry, e.g. <title level="c">Corpus Christi MS. 251</title>.

Discussion

  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2010-01-18

    • status: open --> closed
     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2010-01-18

    I am not quite sure what you mean by a "catalogue entry" here: the example suggests you are thinking of an identifier such as a catalogue number which would not be considered to be a title of any sort. The concept of bibliographic level is one we've inherited from ISBD, and it relates very specifically to a title -- does the title apply to a "monograph" or to an "analytic" or "serial". A catalogue number is probably best recorded using the <idno> element, or (if that's the title you want to give a work) then it's probably a monographic title.

    @level is not to be confused with @type... you could use the latter to say that this title is derived from a catalogue number of course.