#274 Change to content model of <seriesStmt>

[Sebastian Rahtz]

Under some circumstances, one does a bibliographical entry as
a <biblStruct>, in others as a <biblFull>. Inside both you get to
talk about a "series", using <series> or <seriesStmt>. Yet the beasts
are rather different in their content.

<series> allows (simplified) \text | title | ref | editor | respStmt | biblScope
<seriesStmt> allows (simplified) model.pLike | title | idno | respStmt

This should be more aligned than it is:

1. one has plain text, the other has <p>
2. one permits <idno>, the other <biblScope>
3. one allows editor | respStmt, the other only respStmt

the examples we have show <idno> and <biblScope> being used for the same purpose:

series:
<title level="s">Serie A: Historische Quellenkunden</title>
<biblScope>Band 11</biblScope>

seriesStmt:

<title>Machine-Readable Texts for the Study of Indian Literature</title>
<idno type="vol">1.2</idno>

I propose that we change <seriesStmt> to have a content model of

<choice xmlns="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0">
<oneOrMore>
<ref name="model.pLike"/>
</oneOrMore>
<group>
<oneOrMore>
<ref name="title"/>
</oneOrMore>
<zeroOrMore>
<choice>
<ref name="editor"/>
<ref name="respStmt"/>
</choice>
</zeroOrMore>
<zeroOrMore>
<ref name="biblScope"/>
</zeroOrMore>
</group>
</choice>

or similar

[Laurent Romary]

Is there a need for the two things? Would not <series> replace <seriesStmt>?

[Lou Burnard]

This is probably not the only place where biblStruct and biblFull differ in strange ways: we should probably look more systematically at the question. I fell tempted to wonder whether we shouldn't start deprecating biblFull now, with a view to dropping it at P6 (or sooner) : it's sole raison d'etre, as a means of embedding one TEI header's file statement in another's) has never really been taken up, and could maybe be met by other means.

To address the specific question here, though: I guess one good way forward might be to define a model class model.seriesNamePart (calling it "model.seriesPart" would confuse far too many librarians)

[Sebastian Rahtz]

In the light of discussion, I am inclined to agree that my suggested patch is not drastic enough, and that a deprecation of <biblFull> would be more productive. Maybe move it a new module called Deprecated Features.

[Lou Burnard]

Council agreed that the two should be more similar in content model. Although not explicitly discussed, your point that some of the examples use idno where they should use biblScope makes sense. Your proposal to remove <idno> does not seem quite right though: a series can have its own identifier . I am not convinced that <biblScope> makes sense as a child of <series or seriesStmt (rather than as a sibling) but I guess we're stuck with it now.

Have implemented content model accordingly at 8829