To resurrect a very old thread, change from biblScope@type to biblScope@unit has actually been implemented since then ( http://purl.org/TEI/FR/3570037 ) and was included in the most recent release of P5. I have created a new ticket ( http://purl.org/TEI/FR/3602428 ) for singular vs. plural issue, and for the addition of a suggested value for columns, as discussed in this thread:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:41:27 +0100, Lou <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>1. biblScope typically expresses a range which is why the unit names
>are given in the plural (mostly) : where in the singular it's because
>we're typically talking about a large unit (vol, part) where only one is
>likely to be named. It seems odd to say <biblScope type="vols" from="3"
>2. renaming @type to @unit is not a bad idea, but since @type isn't
>actually wrong -- it is the type of bibliographic scope being defined --
>a scope defined in pages (or columns, if you insist) -- I'm loath to
>introduce such a change with all the consequent backwards compatibility
>3. the description could certainly be improved. How about the following
>"identifies the units in terms of which the scope is defined, for
>example <val>pp</val> for pages, <val>ll</val> for lines etc."
>4. The list is not a closed one, so we don't actually need to add
>col(umn)s but I am happy to do so if the people so wish.
>Syd Bauman 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?