#484 `<availability>` should be a member of model.biblPart

[Martin Holmes]

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.

[James Cummings]

Assigning to Elli Mylonas to triage and report back to council with a proposal.

[Syd Bauman]

Council agrees that not only does ＜availability＞ go model.biblPart, but also into ＜analytic＞, ＜monogr＞, and ＜series＞

[Elli Mylonas]

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.</availability></monogr></series></analytic></availability>

1. as a generic entry, after the main bibliographic information, and just before the model.notelike set of elements.

2. 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. </edition>

Questions: does this make sense? If so, should <availability> also be added to <imprint> inside <monogr> ? </monogr></imprint></availability>

[Kevin Hawkins]

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.

[Kevin Hawkins]

Per further discussion on tei-council, I now support allowing <availability> not only as a child of <imprint> but also of <analytic> and <series>.

[Syd Bauman]

I presume, Kevin, you mean “I now support allowing <availability> not only as a child of <imprint> but also of <analytic> and <series>”, yes?</analytic>

[Kevin Hawkins]

Yes, thanks, I've corrected my original.