I agree on the need for "col" and have used that value recently --
while I am loathe usually to move outside the suggested values, I did
so in this case.
I agree with Syd that the language needs a hair of refining. is ther a
way to list the full words and then their abbreviations?
Elizabeth "Lisa" McAulay
UCLA Digital Library Program
On Sep 10, 2010, at 7:18 AM, "Syd Bauman" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Good point. But actually, it's worse than you think (or at least,
> than you mention). The source ODD reads
> <desc>identifies the type of information conveyed by the
> element, e.g. <val>columns</val>, <val>pages</val>,
> implying that "pages" is a possible value of type=, not the thing to
> which the value refers. This is problematic, as now the Guidelines
> are suggesting two different values for the concept "pages" (because
> the actual suggested value for pages is 'pp').
> So at the very least, either the <val> phrase-level elements should
> be removed from the <desc>, or they should be brought in line with
> the suggested value list. (And in either case, the concept of
> "columns" should probably be present.)
> But furthermore, the suggested value list is inexplicably
> inconsistent with respect to number: some glosses of suggested values
> indicate singular, some plural.
> Moreover, the from= and to= attributes explicitly refer to that which
> is indicated by the type= attribute as a 'unit' ... so shouldn't the
> type= attribute really be a unit= attribute?
>> the description of biblScope/@type reads "identifies the type of
>> information conveyed by the element, e.g. columns, pages, volume" -
>> so shouldn't "col" be added to the list of suggestd values?