I must say that in all of my time working with the TEI's structure of
bibliographic description, including working on the Technical Council
from 2010 to 2013 on a close editing of various parts of the Guidelines
dealing with bibliographic description, I have never known the
Guidelines to claim that <biblStruct> is meant for a description of a
bibliographic work whereas <bibl> is meant for an instance of that work.
There's even an example in section 3.11.1 that combines a <biblStruct>
and two <bibl>s in a single <listBibl>, and I don't see any indication
that this is a type/token or FRBR-like distinction.
Have I misunderstood you here? If not, I think we need a SourceForge
ticket here to propose revisions to the Guidelines to clarify the
semantics of <biblStruct> and <bibl>.
On 10/16/14 10:55 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
> [I]f you really want to put a full bibliographic description inside an
> individual <msItem>, you can do so, but you must use <bibl>, not
> <biblStruct>. This is because <biblStruct> is meant to be used for an
> abstract bibliographic description -- a work rather than an instance of
> a work -- and has a much more rigorous structure as a result. Whereas
> <bibl> is more general. Some people will tell you that <bibl> is always
> a better choice than <biblStruct> for that reason!