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 according
to a given style guide without needing to examine each citation by hand
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 -- see:
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 a
> 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 thing,
> 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 has
nothing to do with the publication's imprint. While I agree with Lisa
that the many uses of <imprint> given in 18.104.22.168 go beyond what most of
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 what
Laurent said, if you read the prose definition of <imprint> given in
22.214.171.124, you'll see that the portion presumably prescribing the use of
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 bibliographic
item containing the item with the analytic title, regardless of whether
it's actually a monograph. So by all means do the same for <imprint>.
While investigating this topic, I discovered this confusing bit of prose
in the Guidelines, further down in 126.96.36.199:
"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 name
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 elements
for volume and page numbers, together with a date element."
I believe the first paragraph explains how to use a <biblScope> that is
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 title.