No, I don't think that's fair, for a number of reasons.
First of all, if we use FRBR terminology, people usually cite
manifestations, not expressions. ISBD, on which cataloging rules are
based, also specifies the manifestation as the entity of interest for
library cataloging. But in the practice of rare-book cataloging and
descriptive bibliography, you often describe the item, not the
I believe a description of any FRBR Group 1 Entity (work, expression,
manifestation, or item) could be fit into biblStruct, especially if
drawing inspiration from ISBD, a national general-purpose cataloging
code like AACR2 or RDA, or a standard specific to rare books such as
On 10/27/14 4:45 AM, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> Would it be fair to say that <bibStruct> can only describe an expression, whereas <bibl> can describe anything? <bibl>
> is just a container into which people can shovel any bibliographically-related, or other, markup that they like, including
> figures, notes, lingusitic markup, feature structures and apparatus criticus. So while its true that the semantics
> of bible and biblStruct are the same ("bibliographic citation”), those semantics are sufficiently vague (coming
> from a more innocent age, perhaps, before the FRB-ized takeover) so as to allow <bibl> at least to stray into
> the manifestation mode or even the item.
> Sebastian Rahtz
> Director (Research) of Academic IT
> University of Oxford IT Services
> 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
> Não sou nada.
> Nunca serei nada.
> Não posso querer ser nada.
> À parte isso, tenho em mim todos os sonhos do mundo.