Apologies in advance for a rapid and possibly incomplete or ill
reasoned response to this thread.
* I don't think <roleName> is appropriate to indicate that someone is
the responsible party for taking a particular photograph. It might
be used to indicate that someone has the office of Official
Photographer of the Order of the Phoenix, but not as byline.
* Just off the top of my head, the idea of using <respStmt> in <bibl>
makes a lot of sense, but it seems awfully odd to put it in the
<head>: was that intentional? (I.e., is the photographer's name in
the title or heading in the source document, or do you want it
printed there, Conal?) Seems to me like it would be more sensibly
placed in a <p> (if it is part of the source or intended for print)
or <figDesc> (if not).
* I cannot speak for what the original designers had in mind for
<bibl>, nor am I a librarian; and I realize that all of the
examples of <bibl> et al. in P4 refer to books, journals, and other
textual objects; and yes, I know the etymology of "bibl". But that
said, I'm not at all sure it isn't quite reasonable to put a
citation to a painting or photograph in a <bibl>. Art historians
speak of bibliographies of paintings, don't they? The entry for
"Bibliography" in Merriam-Webster includes "the history,
identification, or description of writings or publications" and
"works ... referred to in a text". If the painting is a published
work of art, it would seem to fit without any stretching, let alone
* Cliff, I'm gathering that
<p><persName key="artist06">Picasso</persName> painted
<title>Les Demoiselles d'Avignon</title> in
is insufficient for your purposes?
And now, the main reason I wanted to post:
* Paul Tremblay and the xml-biblio group are working right now on how
bibliographic citations will work in P5. The plan is for a new
element, <biblItem>, to replace <biblStruct> and its immediate
children, and indeed there is a form= attribute. The new element is
described in the ODD file definition in the CVS tree on
Sourceforge, but the discussion and examples in the prose of the
Guidelines has not been changed yet, nor do I think the new
<biblItem> has made it to the P5 released files yet (it will next
* There are two proposals for changing how <figure> type things are
handled in P5. The second, which makes use of a new <graphic>
element, was proposed by Lou and has been incorporated into the
current text of P5 (both CVS tree and release sets on Sourceforge).
The first was originally proposed by the stand-off markup
work-group in June of 2003, and is discussed a working paper of
theirs: http://www.tei-c.org/Activities/SO/sow04.html. In either
case I'm hopeful that we can do a better job of storing the data
that goes along with an image or other non-textual object.