We are attempting to provide information about the access/availability status of items in a bibliography, encoded with <bibl>
. It seems reasonable to be able to encode this information in the same way we would do so in the <publicationStmt>
, using <availability>
, and no other approach seems available (other than the generic <note>
). <availability>
is a member of model.publicationStmtPart, which shares a lot of elements with model.biblPart, for obvious reasons (<publisher>
, for instance). I think <availability>
should be a member of model.biblPart.
It presumably belongs in the content model of <monogr>
somewhere too, <biblFull>
already has it because <publicationStmt>
can appear in it.
Assigning to Elli Mylonas to triage and report back to council with a proposal.
Council agrees that not only does <availability> go model.biblPart, but also into <analytic>, <monogr>, and <series>
Added <availability> to model.biblPart, <analytic> and <series>
<monogr> to which we also wanted to add <availability> seems to have 2 places where it made sense to include it, so I did them both.
as a generic entry, after the main bibliographic information, and just before the model.notelike set of elements.
Inside <edition> - in case the availability of a particular edition is not the same as the availability of the work as cited in the main part of the entry.
Questions: does this make sense? If so, should <availability> also be added to <imprint> inside <monogr> ?
James alerted me to this ticket.
A statement of availability can plausibly related to an edition (for a statement or copyright or a license) or to a particular copy (for a description of physical access). In the TEI header, either of these is encoded using
<availability>
, which is inside<publicationStmt>
.Since
<publicationStmt>
is akin to<imprint>
just as<editionStmt>
is akin to<edition>
, I suggest that if we want to support use of<availability>
inside<monogr>
, it should be allowed only as a child of<imprint>
, which contains information relating to "[. . .] distribution of a bibliographic item". Just as bibliographies sometimes describe editions and sometimes copies, bibliographic items may be editions or copies.Per further discussion on tei-council, I now support allowing
<availability>
not only as a child of<imprint>
but also of<analytic>
and<series>
.Last edit: Kevin Hawkins 2014-09-09
I presume, Kevin, you mean “I now support allowing
<availability>
not only as a child of<imprint>
but also of <analytic> and<series>
”, yes?Yes, thanks, I've corrected my original.