#347 clarify and rationalize encoding of pagination in bibliograp

RED
closed-rejected
Kevin Hawkins
5
2012-08-08
2012-03-05
Kevin Hawkins
No

Discussion

<< < 1 2 3 > >> (Page 2 of 3)
  • Kevin Hawkins
    Kevin Hawkins
    2012-08-05

    • milestone: 871209 --> RED
     
  • BODARD Gabriel
    BODARD Gabriel
    2012-08-06

    I'm obviously a lot less specialist in bibliographic markup than Kevin, but my understanding of the different between <extent> and <biblScope> is that the latter allows you to express a range (of pages, volumes etc.) that defines a part (a scope) of a larger whole: pp. 12-20 of a book, issue 115 of a journal, etc., whereas <extent> is for a expression of total size: this book contains xiv+355 pages; this monograph is made up of 3 volumes; this film is 100 minutes long. (So I agree that biblScope as in (2b) is more appropriate than extent as in (2a)--although I'm still twitchy on the location of it.)

    The difficult distinction, therefore, is not between biblScope and extent, which as I see it are pretty unambiguous (extent is rarely if ever used in a footnote; biblScope perhaps not so often used in a library or bookseller catalogue), but between biblScope and biblCitedRange. This would involve explaining the difference between two kinds of page numbers (e.g.) which are currently, and fairly intuitively, tagged using biblScope.

    Two questions: #1 can we comfortably and unambiguously define the difference between a range of pages (or single page) that define the scope of a complete bibliographic item being listed, and a range of pages of single page that define the subset of the listed bibliographic item being cited? #2 do we feel it's necessary to distinguish between these two things, given that we've never done so before? I wonder if the distinction may not inherent in where in your bibliographic hierarchy the biblScope lives, but I'd have to sit down and look at some examples with the help of an expert like Kevin or Laurent to come up with a coherent proposal on this front.

    Incidentally, I'm not convinced that we should ever use <biblScope type="date">--that seems barbaric to me. The date in the imprint of the journal example refers to the publication date of Epigraphica 10, so it is not a further subset of that issue. If the journal Epigraphica had changed publishers over the years, presumably the publisher and pubPlace within that imprint would also refer to those in place when issue 10 was published, and not imply that it referred to the entire run of the journal. The presence of <biblscope type="pp"> in this same monogr is confusing, though: it's not the issue of the journal that is limited by these pages, but the article within it.

     
  • Martin Holmes
    Martin Holmes
    2012-08-06

    On Gabby's two questions:

    #1 can we comfortably and unambiguously define the
    difference between a range of pages (or single page) that define the scope
    of a complete bibliographic item being listed, and a range of pages of
    single page that define the subset of the listed bibliographic item being
    cited?

    I think we can, but doesn't the context usually do this? An item in a bibliography is surely going to contain the full page-range of an analytic item within its containing monogr, whereas a quotation in a text is going to refer to the specific page(s) of the quotation itself (and may link to a full bibliographic item). Perhaps there are cases where both would appear within the same biblStruct, but I haven't come across any.

    #2 do we feel it's necessary to distinguish between these two
    things, given that we've never done so before?

    I'm not convinced of the need to do this, but if it is required, then I'd be much happier with adding a new recommended value for @type (<biblScope type="citedRange">) than adding a new element.

     
  • Kevin Hawkins
    Kevin Hawkins
    2012-08-06

    On question #2, I think it's important to be able to make this distinction. If you have citations encoded in TEI that you want to be able to send as queries to CrossRef to retrieve DOIs, you want to send only page ranges for the scope of a complete bibliographic item, not ranges of pages or single pages that define the subset of the item.

    Gabby and I just skyped and came out with a proposal. I'm going to jot my notes and send to him to make sure I got it right; will share everyone soon.

     
  • Laurent Romary
    Laurent Romary
    2012-08-07

    Just read all the thread and for the record, I would favor a solution with @tape on biblScope.

     
  • BODARD Gabriel
    BODARD Gabriel
    2012-08-07

    Kevin and I have discussed this issue in depth off-line, and have come up with two new proposals as an alternative to the one suggested in this ticket. We have opened two new tickets:

    http://purl.org/TEI/FR/3555190 Improve guidance and restrict usage of biblScope
    and
    http://purl.org/TEI/FR/3555191 New element <citedRange> for bibliography

    I suggest we close this ticket and discuss those two separate proposals at the relevant tickets.

     
  • Laurent Romary
    Laurent Romary
    2012-08-08

    Seems to be a way to move forward. Let's try to sort out the two new tickets.

     
  • Martin Holmes
    Martin Holmes
    2012-08-08

    No objection from me.

     
  • Kevin Hawkins
    Kevin Hawkins
    2012-08-08

    Excellent, I'm now closing this ticket.

     
<< < 1 2 3 > >> (Page 2 of 3)