#79 biblScope should be in Imprint or not? (biblStruct)


In the Guidelines, says:

"A bibliographic description, particularly for an analytic title, will often include some additional information specifying its location, for example as a volume number, page number, range of page numbers, or name or number of a subdivision of the host work. The element biblScope may be used to identify such information if it is present. Where it is desired to distinguish different classes of such information (volume number, page number, chapter number, etc.), the type attribute may be used with any convenient typology.

"When the item being cited is a journal article, the imprint element describing the issue in which it appeared may contain biblScope elements for volume and page numbers, together with a date element."

I believe the first paragraph explains how to use a <biblScope> that is not a child of <imprint>, and the second paragraph describes a <biblScope> which is a child of <imprint>. What makes the description of a journal article different from the description of an analytic title? I thought a journal article's title is a type of analytic title.

So there are a few things that need clarification:

1) Whether the first paragraph's directions about use of biblScope really means to say that it is a sibling, not child, of imprint.

2) Why a journal article is different from an analytic title (or other analytic titles).

3) Whether, in the case of a journal article, there should be a biblScope sibling of imprint in addition to a child. It seems that the sibling biblScope would have the page numbers cited and the child biblScope would have the page numbers of the whole article.


<< < 1 2 (Page 2 of 2)
  • Kevin Hawkins

    Kevin Hawkins - 2011-09-28

    On 11-09-18 11:31 PM, Laurent Romary wrote:
    > I see the proposal has gone astray and I don't seem to agree with the
    > direction taken. In any case I don't feel at ease breaking what has
    > always made sense to me, namely, imprint/biblScope, corresponding to
    > "the page range of a chapter in a book, the page range of an article
    > in a journal", which is indeed closely related to the way the article
    > has been published.
    > I actually thought of analytic/biblScope for the quoted pages, and
    > that's what I was referring to in the ticket.
    > Finally, I think biblStruct/biblScope as extremely dangerous, as this
    > correspond to destructuring a highly structured object such as
    > biblStruct (and we are not in the context of the bibl-biblScope
    > debate are we?).
    > How do we proceed from this? I would first like to know whether there
    > are strong diverging opinions among us. Than maybe a dedicated Telco
    > could be necessary. This is quite an important issue: one
    > bibliographical standards are set we may quickly get tons of
    > implemented occurances. We'd better think the thing right.

  • Kevin Hawkins

    Kevin Hawkins - 2011-09-28

    On 9/19/11 8:44 AM, Martin Holmes wrote:
    > My opinions are still as they're stated on the ticket: I'm also
    > reluctant to appear to deprecate imprint/biblScope, just because it's
    > been so widely used, but I do think analytic/biblScope, monogr/biblScope
    > and biblStruct/biblScope all have good arguments in their favour, and
    > particular use-cases.
    > However, I no longer really believe that biblStruct is really useful in
    > itself; I've stopped using it in current projects, in favour of bibl,
    > now that bibl can be nested. So I'm fairly neutral on whether this
    > change is made or not.

  • Kevin Hawkins

    Kevin Hawkins - 2011-09-28

    Let's put aside the question of the usefulness of biblStruct since it's not relevant to this ticket. I am trying to clarify the guidelines on use of biblScope, regardless of whether this is within bibl or biblStruct.

    I think there are two separate matters here:

    a) where to put the quoted page(s) and where to put the "the page range of a chapter in a book, the page range of an article in a journal".

    b) whether, if "the page range of a chapter in a book, the page range of an article in a journal" won't go in imprint/biblScope, whether to deprecate usage of imprint/biblScope in P5

    We need to solve (a) before (b). Since we can't reach consensus on (a), I think we're going to need to abandon this ticket. I find that to be a pity since lack of clarify on which page numbers go where hinders interoperability and is a barrier to adoption of the TEI for uses in scholarly publishing.

  • Laurent Romary

    Laurent Romary - 2011-09-29

    I would invert the resoning. b) has to remain stable since there are quite some data around using the monogr/imprint locus for biblScope

    If we would keep b) stable, we could easily recommend that for a) analytic is the place for quoted pages, keeping the structured nature of biblStruct

  • Martin Holmes

    Martin Holmes - 2011-09-29

    That's OK with me. It gives us some progress, at least.

  • Kevin Hawkins

    Kevin Hawkins - 2011-12-09

    Adding biblScope as a child of analytic seems useful. But if I encountered a biblScope inside a monogr which contains a page range, how would I know if the page range is for whole journal article or just for the cited pages of that article? (The same applies for any analytic work that's not a journal article.)

  • Laurent Romary

    Laurent Romary - 2011-12-09

    It should be clear that any biblScope directly within analytic or monogr (don't know what this would mean for series though) should mean the indication of the excerpt. +But+ biblScope in monogr should only be allowed when the isn't an analytic to host this information. So, in the case of a book, one can have such a biblScope in monogr meaning the portion of the bool being quoted, but for a journal paper, the biblScope should exclusively be in analytic (I'm not talking of the one in imprint here to avoid interference)

  • Kevin Hawkins

    Kevin Hawkins - 2011-12-09

    Laurent is saying that if we made this change to the schema, any <biblScope> within <analytic> which contains a page range should be interpreted as meaning the page range cited, not the page range of the whole analytic item. However, when you are citing from an independent item and not an analytic work -- that is, when there's no <analytic> but only <monogr> in your citation -- you put the page range of the cited pages in a <biblScope> which is a child of <monogr> (or of <imprint> within <monogr>?).

    So if I want to indicate the page range of the whole journal article (and not just the part quoted), where do I put this page range? In <monogr>? In <series>? Where do you put the volume and issue number of the cited article?

  • Kevin Hawkins

    Kevin Hawkins - 2012-03-05
    • status: open-accepted --> closed-accepted
<< < 1 2 (Page 2 of 2)