Lou Burnard wrote:
> I think this is based on a misunderstanding of what <analytic> and
> <monogr> mean.
> I appreciate that this solution may look odd to those unacquainted with
> the traditional cataloguing mentality. But rest assured that both the
> alternatives proposed so far look even odder!
Actually, it does not look odd to me at all. It is much closer
to what I want to represent - and thus should be easier to
>  using <bibl> with <title level="a"> is a lighterweight way of
> indicating that this is an "analytic" title
So should it be used with the main <monogr> title when
the item in question was published separately? For example,
in a bibliography of Thomas Norton's writings, one item
> > <biblStruct>
> > <monogr>
> > <author>Ashmole, Elias</author>
> > <title>Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum</title>
> <note type="contents">
> > <bibl>
> > <title level="a">The Ordinall of Alchimy</title>
> > <author>Thomas Norton of Bristoll</author>
> > <biblScope type=pages>1-106</>
<!-- and so on -->
while a stand alone edition would be:
<title level="a">The Ordinal of Alchemy</title>
<imprint>Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975</imprint>
<title>Early English Text Society</title>
In other words, if a "monograph" is not a journal or anthology
but a single work, is the title level "analytic"?
Also, since titles of the same item may differ, either slightly
in spelling (as in the example above) or more significantly,
using the "reg" attribute on <title> would be a good idea, I guess?
BTW: I understand that "translator" and "printer" should be
encoded as <respStmt>? In "18.104.22.168 Authors, Titles, and Editors"
of the _Guidelines_ it is also suggested that <editor> may be
used for "translator" and I find it a bit misleading as
the two types of responsibility are quite different. Actually,
as a translator myself, I believe the responsibility is important
enough to be granted a <translator> tag :-)