On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 16:18:54 +0200, Martina Gödel <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>the reason why we are interested in avoiding redundancy is our workflow:
> Our editors are creating the files and will be modifying them. They
>would have to double the <monogr> information for each of the articles
>included in one book. Or, in case of a correction, they would have to do
>the correction in up to 15/20 files.
>That's why we are using XInclude; therefore our biblStruct-files are
>always valid and complete.
Do not consider XInclude as a substitute for relational database inside a TEI file. XInclude is only a way to cut a TEI (or other XML file), considered as a whole, in shorter pieces easier to edit. (I use it most of the time: editing divs apart as “XInclusions”.) Suppose the same book appears 15 times as you say. It would be interesting (to say the less) to give that book an xml:id. After the “XInclusions” are resolved in the final TEI, you get a TEI XML with 15 times the same xml:id. It may look valid TEI but it is not even valid XML. I am very much interested in your problem: no redundancy in bibliography (not only for books or journals, the same for authors), and I am eager to learn more from this discussion, but XInclude is a “non semantic” solution. Is there no way to introduce each book only once, and have articles point to a book?