Thanks, Kevin. I know it took some time to spell this all out for me,
but I've found it very helpful... and convincing!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kevin Hawkins
> Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 1:17 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: biblScope should be in Imprint or not? (biblStruct)
> The distinction Lou makes -- works being described as part of another
> work versus works described as the whole thing -- is useful because it
> would allow future reuse of the metadata to generate citations
> to a given style guide without needing to examine each citation by
> to determine whether the volume and issue number apply to the part or
> the whole. This same part/whole distinction is made on title@level --
> Lou explained it like this:
> > My view is that a full bibliographic description should include
> > biblScope inside the imprint when the work being described is only
> > part of some other work for example, if the biblStruct title might
> > be something like "Artichoke - Axolotl (Encylopaedia Vegetiana vol
> > 3)". When, by contrast, the work being described is the whole
> > and we just want to reference a part of it in the description, then
> > the biblScope belongs as a sibling of the imprint, rather than its
> > child. The latter seems to me the more usual case -- e.g. where we
> > cite an analytic title.
> I find Lou's wording quite confusing, but I believe he meant to
> distinguish between citing a whole journal article and just a part of
> it. So if you cite the whole journal article, put the <biblScope> for
> the page numbers inside the <imprint>. If you cite just part of the
> journal article (perhaps the pages containing a quotation you use in
> your work), put the <biblScope> outside of <imprint> for the page
> numbers of that quotation.
> Lou (and Laurent, who agreed with him), do I understand you correctly?
> Lisa responded that she doesn't want to put data in <imprint> which
> nothing to do with the publication's imprint. While I agree with Lisa
> that the many uses of <imprint> given in 188.8.131.52 go beyond what most
> us think of as an "imprint", we need to keep our knowledge of English
> from interfering with our use of the TEI Guidelines. To reiterate
> Laurent said, if you read the prose definition of <imprint> given in
> 184.108.40.206, you'll see that the portion presumably prescribing the use
> biblScope refers to "specific location of the material being cited
> within its containing publication". So this is where such information
> should go, even though this has nothing to do with an "imprint".
> Likewise, don't let your understanding of what a "monograph" is
> interfere with your use of <monogr> . Lisa is already correctly using
> this element as in the Guidelines -- to refer to the whole
> item containing the item with the analytic title, regardless of
> it's actually a monograph. So by all means do the same for <imprint>.
> While investigating this topic, I discovered this confusing bit of
> in the Guidelines, further down in 220.127.116.11:
> "A bibliographic description, particularly for an analytic title, will
> often include some additional information specifying its location, for
> example as a volume number, page number, range of page numbers, or
> or number of a subdivision of the host work. The element biblScope may
> be used to identify such information if it is present. Where it is
> desired to distinguish different classes of such information (volume
> number, page number, chapter number, etc.), the type attribute may be
> used with any convenient typology.
> "When the item being cited is a journal article, the imprint element
> describing the issue in which it appeared may contain biblScope
> for volume and page numbers, together with a date element."
> I believe the first paragraph explains how to use a <biblScope> that
> not a child of <imprint>, and the second paragraph describes a
> <biblScope> which is a child of <imprint>. What makes the description
> of a journal article different from the description of an analytic
> title? I thought a journal article's title is a type of analytic