#429 biblScope@unit & citedRange@unit: consistency & sugg. values

AMBER
closed-fixed
1(low)
2013-06-18
2013-01-28
No

(The first part of this is a bug report, but the second is a feature request. I've kept them as one ticket because we should do the first before the second.)

Per this thread:

http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1009&L=TEI-L&P=R6031&1=TEI-L&9=A&I=-3&J=on&d=No+Match%3BMatch%3BMatches&z=4

the suggested values of biblScope@unit (formerly biblScope@type) and citedRange@unit should all be singular or all plural for consistency. In a subsequent message, Lou suggests uniformly using the singular. We should also make the text in <gloss> and <desc> for each definition consistent as well.

Once we decide whether to do singlular or plural, we should add a suggested value to be used when a citation includes a reference to one or more columns (as in the thread).

Discussion

  • Lou Burnard

    Lou Burnard - 2013-03-31

    I am not sure which "subsequent post" you mean Kevin· I did try to explain the variability: some values for @unit are most likely to be plural (e.g. pp), while others might more plausibly be singular (e.g. vol) put in giving that example I wasn't expressing a preference for the singular over the plural where the plural is more natural e.g. "pp 23-25, 46ff". Why not permit both?
    <biblScope unit="p">42</biblScope> and <biblScope unit="pp">42-44</biblScope> both seem plausible to me.

    However if the consensus prefers drab uniformity, then singular is probably more appropriate since the attribute is called "unit" rather than "units". And the values for columns become "col" .

     
  • Lou Burnard

    Lou Burnard - 2013-03-31
    • milestone: --> AMBER
     
  • Kevin Hawkins

    Kevin Hawkins - 2013-04-06

    The "subsequent message" was a misleading reference to a later message in that very thread:

    http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=TEI-L;a8vYkQ;20100910174127%2B0100

    The reason why not "to permit both" is the same reason invoked by me and a number of others in many debates: that to promote interoperability of encoded texts, we should prescribe a single practice when there's no reason to allow for more than one option. While there are some cases where more than one practice is justified, this doesn't seem to me to be one of them.

    So we seem to be in agreement that we want the suggested values (and the values of <desc> and <gloss>) all to be singular, and to provide a new suggested value of "col".

     
    Last edit: Kevin Hawkins 2013-04-07
  • Kevin Hawkins

    Kevin Hawkins - 2013-04-11

    Council breakout group agrees on switching to singular forms but also wants to use full words instead of single letters for the attribute values. Thus:

    • page
    • line

    We are also not opposed to spelling out "column", "volume", and "chapter" for consistency.

     
  • Kevin Hawkins

    Kevin Hawkins - 2013-04-11

    Hugh will do this. We decided to spell out all of the values of @unit but not @type and add "column". Be sure to update values used in examples elsewhere in the Guidelines.

     
  • Kevin Hawkins

    Kevin Hawkins - 2013-04-11
    • assigned_to: Hugh A. Cayless
     
  • Hugh A. Cayless

    Hugh A. Cayless - 2013-06-18
    • status: open --> closed-fixed
    • Priority: 5 --> 1(low)
     
  • Hugh A. Cayless

    Hugh A. Cayless - 2013-06-18

    Fixed in r12265 and r12266

     

Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.

Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:

JavaScript is required for this form.





No, thanks