Hi Martin, Matthew, et al.
Just because there is not the suggested value you want does not
mean that you cannot use other values! It just means that the TEI
has not suggested that value as one of the examples you might
want to use.
Indeed, @unit on both biblScope and citedRange is there because
those elements both claim membership of
the att.citing class.
As you'll see there, the datatype of @unit is teidata.enumerated.
Whenever I see that datatype in the attributes I'm recommending
people use I suggest that they constrain it to be a set list of
values. See the note on
which suggests this.
So in Matthew's case in creating his ODD he might wish to suggest
a (fixed or 'semi' fixed) list of attribute values which includes
'number' as a value. (If indeed 'number' is the right term for
this kind of thing rather than 'entry' or 'orderedEntry' or
whatever else might seem reasonable.)
However, I think we're miscommunicating. I read Matthew's
original email not as asking for an alternative to using @unit on
citedRange or biblScope but wanting a suggestion for an
alternative term to put in the unit attribute.
Matthew: I'd say the unit is 'entry' myself.
On 13/12/16 09:47, Martin de la Iglesia wrote:
> I'm afraid <biblScope> doesn't solve the problem: @unit is also
> available in <biblScope> and there is no suggested @unit value
> for the kind of number Matthew is looking for.
> Martin de la Iglesia
> Metadata and Data Conversion
> Georg-August-Universität Göttingen
> Göttingen State and University Library
> D-37073 Göttingen
> Papendiek 14 (Historical Building, Room 1.206)
> +49 551 39-14070 (Tel.)
> +49 551 39-3468 (Fax)
> [log in to unmask]
> Am 12.12.2016 um 15:16 schrieb Elisa:
>> Matthew-- I think you'll want <biblScope> for this. It's a
>> wonderfully versatile element, since you can use it for all
>> kinds of ranges. See
>> Elisa Beshero-Bondar, PhD
>> Director, Center for the Digital Text
>> Associate Professor of English
>> University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg
>> 150 Finoli Drive, Greensburg, PA 15601 USA
>> E-mail: [log in to unmask] | Development site: http://newtfire.org
>> Typeset by hand on my iPad
>> On Dec 12, 2016, at 6:14 AM, MLH <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>> Is there a standard way of encoding bibliographical entries
>>> where (instead of a page) a numbered entry or range of
>>> numbered entries is cited?
>>> For example:
>>> <bibl><title>Bibliotheca Hagiographia Latina>, 5625-6</bibl>
>>> <citedRange> does not have "number" (or an equivalent) as an
>>> accepted value of @unit - is there an alternative?
Dr James Cummings, Academic IT Services, University of Oxford,
TEI Consultations: [log in to unmask]