Syd Bauman wrote:
> The chapter on the TEI Header does say that <extent> is explicitly
> for the sizes of the TEI-encoded electronic text. I think this is
> unfortunate, as clearly <extent> can (and IMHO should) be used for
> the size or format of physical books, too.
Thank you for the detailed reply - and sorry for not making
the context clear. It is a bibliography listing of pre-1800
> At the WWP, we have added type=, unit=, and value= attributes to
> <extent> to start setting up a controlled vocabulary for how we
> describe the size of the books we encode.
This actually solves my second question, too - I wanted to use
the <biblScope> for encoding the total number of pages and
pagination details. Now I see that it should be restricted
to defining a range of pages in a citation and <extent>
applied to physical description of a monograph.
> > 3. I need to include information on references/descriptions in
> > standard bibliographies (such as "Ferguson II, 123") and
> > libraries/collections where copies are held (eg. "British
> > Library 1034.c.13."). All that I could think of is
> > <note type="ref"> and <note type="repo"> respectively.
> > Any other suggestions?
> Again, I'm not sure I understand what the context is. While <note> can
> be properly forced into service for all sorts of things, it may not be
> the best choice. Depending on the context I'd be inclined to say
> either <bibl> or <xref> would probably be more specific, and thus a
> better choice.
As I am already using <bibl> heavily for including partial contents
within <monogr>, I think I will use <note> for now. This is not a big
project, so it will not be difficult to convert to <ref> or <xref>
if needed - which is, of course, a good idea.