[MEI-L] revision of <bibl>

[Roland, Perry (pdr4h)]

Hi, Peter,

The statement "<biblStrict> is even worse than <bibl>" sounds like hyperbole to me.  :-)

Of course, you're correct in pointing out that <biblStrict> doesn't impose the order and number requirements of  <tei:biblStruct>, but it does impose structure -- it removes plain text and the members of model.textphraseLike from the model of <bibl>, thus requiring that the components of the citation be marked using only the members of model.biblPart (and a few other elements).  

I don't disagree with you that more structure than that may be required by some users.  But I don't believe that <biblStrict> will be particularly difficult to use/code/process because it provides fewer constraints than <tei:biblStruct>.  And, if I'm wrong, then <tei:biblStruct> or an MEI equivalent can be added later to accommodate the need for tighter constraints and the capture of additional information.

--
p.

__________________________
Perry Roland
Music Library
University of Virginia
P. O. Box 400175
Charlottesville, VA 22904
434-982-2702 (w)
pdr4h (at) virginia (dot) edu
________________________________________
From: mei-l-bounces+pdr4h=virginia.edu at lists.uni-paderborn.de [mei-l-bounces+pdr4h=virginia.edu at lists.uni-paderborn.de] on behalf of Peter Stadler [stadler at edirom.de]
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 8:04 AM
To: Music Encoding Initiative
Subject: Re: [MEI-L] revision of <bibl>

Am 22.10.2012 um 21:00 schrieb "Roland, Perry (pdr4h)" <pdr4h at eservices.virginia.edu>:

> I'm not quite yet convinced of the need to adopt a model as highly-structured as TEI's <biblStruct> or the other schemas you pointed to.  Looking at Axel's examples and trying to envision future requirements, I don't see a need *at this time* for the level of detail that <biblStruct> provides.  So, I've been working toward an element I call <biblStrict>.  If we determine that an even more-structured way of handling bibliographic citations/descriptions than <biblStrict> is necessary, we can look at emulating/adopting <biblStruct>, bibtexml, or Zotero.
>
> Whereas, <bibl> allows all inline text elements, <biblStrict> will permit only <title> and the members of a new class, model.biblPart, which has the members: biblScope, contributor, creation, creator, distributor, edition, editor, funder, genre, imprint, physLoc, pubPlace, publisher, recipient, relatedItem, series, and sponsor.  This is very similar to the TEI model of <bibl> with inline text elements removed.

Sorry, but I am not convinced by your arguments.
<biblStrict> is even worse than <bibl> since it does remove inline text without imposing any structure. I like <tei:biblStruct> simply because  it separates information concerning different bibliographic level (series, monogr, analytic) thus creating a hierarchy and structure. That's not overly complex or too detailed. But it's better than throwing everything into one container. Bibtex (and Zotero?) has that sort of flat hierarchy as well (while you could probably infer hierarchy from cross-references) and wasn't meant as an example in that case. It was meant as an example for additional fields which are lacking in TEI, e.g. tags/keywords or abstracts.

Best
Peter


--
Peter Stadler
Carl-Maria-von-Weber-Gesamtausgabe
Arbeitsstelle Detmold
Gartenstr. 20
D-32756 Detmold
Tel. +49 5231 975-665
Fax: +49 5231 975-668
stadler at weber-gesamtausgabe.de
www.weber-gesamtausgabe.de


_______________________________________________
mei-l mailing list
mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-l