#376 New element <citedRange> for bibliography
The Guidelines include many examples of a range of pages for an entire article, book chapter, etc., but none for just that page (or perhaps two consecutive pages) that you quote from or otherwise refer to within an <analytic> or <monogr>. Right now, the only sensible element to use for this is <biblScope>, but if you use this, there's no recommended way to distinguish, say, a <biblScope> for the range of pages for a whole article in a journal issue and another <biblScope> for the two pages in a row from which a quotation is taken. This distinction is quite important for certain applications; for example, if you want to parse tagged citations to query against CrossRef's database to return a DOI for that item, you only want to send a page range for the whole article, not any particular pages that happen to be cited in your work.
That is, how do you cite a part of an <analytic> item, or a part of a <monogr> that doesn't have an <analytic>?
Our recommendation is:
A) to put this page range in a new element, <citedRange>(*), which would be a child of <biblStruct> (and sibling of <analytic>, <monogr>, and <series>). The cited pages/lines/sections aren't intrinsic to any particular level, so we would like them to live outside of all of the levels.
(* Alternative name suggestions welcome.)
If this is considered unpalatable or unnecessary, there are two possible compromises:
B) make <citedRange> not a sibling of monogr etc., but rather a child of <analytic> and of <monogr>. This has the disadvantage of being less obviously distinct in usage (and therefore in definition) from <biblScope>, but careful explanation and choice of examples may mitigate this.
C) use <biblScope> and an attribute to represent these semantics instead of new element. However this is potentially confusing, in that it encodes two rather different semantics in a single element. Also, a new attribute would be necessary, since @type is already used and would still be needed (what if you want to cite lines or columns or chapters rather than pages?). We feel biblScope doesn't sit very well as a sibling of monogr, either.
If (A) or (B) is chosen, we would also add this element as a child of <bibl>.
Examples would be updated throughout the Guidelines as appropriate.
There would be no change to the definition or examples of <extent>: it would still be used not for mentions of particular pages or volumes but for a statement like "4 vols.", "325 pages" or "97 minutes".
The distinction between citation of "just the page or two you want to cite" and "just the page or two you want to cite (which happen to contain the whole article)" seems rather tenuous to me. <biblScope> can certainly be used for either case. But wouldn't best practice always be to define the whole article inside your <bibl> (using biblScope to identify the page range), and then specify the part of it you want to cite using <ref>, rather than defining (potentially) multiple <bibl>s each with a different <biblScope>?
I believe that bibliographic citation formats always specify whether a page range to be given is either for a range of pages for an entire article, book chapter, etc. for for just that page (or perhaps two consecutive pages) that you quote from or otherwise refer to. In the case of a one- or two-page article, it's possible that "just the page or two you want to cite" and "the page range for the whole article" will coincide. But knowing the difference is important for machine processing of citations.
Lou's suggested best practice is stated in terms of <bibl> but would work easily well for <biblStruct> or <biblFull>. Specifically, he suggests that the range of pages that you quote from would exist outside of the <bibl>/<biblStruct>/<biblFull> in any case. I'm not sure that the range of pages you quote from is really not part of the bibliographic citation. It's an ontological question, I suppose. If we agree with Lou that it's not, then I suppose this ticket becomes a moot question.
Agree to create <citedRange> with optional @type:
<bibl><ptr target="#mueller01"/>, <citedRange target="http://example.com/mueller3.xml#page4">vol. 3, pp. 4-5</citedRange></bibl>
Content model of <citedRange> is to be determined. Probably start with just text for now.
Sorry, I meant @target, not @type!
Content model of <citedRange> to be macro.phraseSeq.
Also change <gloss> of <biblScope> to "scope of bibliographic reference".
Implemented at revision 11220:
http://tei.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/tei?view=revision&revision=11220
Decided to include @type on <citedRange> since not all cited ranges are page numbers. Also included @from and @to for ease of machine processing. Made this element a member of att.pointing in order for it to have @target.
As you mention over in the other ticket, I think we should have @unit on citedRange, not @type at all. (That we're soft-deprecating @type over there and it will therefore still be available on biblScope for the lifetime of P5 is no reason to make it available here too...)
For those following this but not "the other ticket", Gabby is referring to http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3570037&group_id=106328&atid=644065 .
I agree with his strategy but had made this revision before discovering that ticket late at night, at which point it was too late to do that one as well. But I'll note on the other ticket that if it's implemented before the next release, I should simply remove @type from <citedRange> (since no one will have used it yet).
That other ticket has now been implemented (before the next release).
In addition to revision 11220, see also revision 11357.
After viewing the revisions with fresh eyes, I've done a bit of cleanup at revision 11820.