Lou and I discussed this briefly in person in Evanston, and I believe we
settled on <biblStruct> being used for structured bibliographic
citations and <bibl> for unstructured ones. So no distinctions between
a work versus instance of a work was intended. --Kevin
On 10/17/14 9:00 AM, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
> 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!