Thanks for the clarification. I suspected nesting was the prime
consideration. And so...

If I undertand correctly the key to the desired solution is achieving is
satisfactory nesting. And satisfactory nesting could be defined as
appropriately recursive.

The information:

author name

title of the review/article

title of the bibliographic object being reviewed

bibliographic information for the bibliographic object being reviewed

A possible P4 encoding:


<author> ... </author>

<title>A review of <cit><biblStruct> ... </biblStruct></cit></title>

<biblScope> ... </biblScope>



<cit> can in turn contain <biblStruct> which in turn ....

Will this cover most of the use cases?


Some components of previous discussions on TEI-L that shaped the thinking
that brought me to consider the use of <cit> as a possible solution:
1) distinguishing between the bibliographic object and the monograph
2) play with <index> within <biblStruct>
3) recalling the "body" model of <div> and mapping that head-mid-foot onto
<biblStruct> as a means of managing nesting.

> Francois Lachance wrote:
> > Seeking Clarification
> >
> > The proposal as currently stated has two parts.
> >       1) introduction of new elements
> >       2) elimination of existing elements
> >
> > quote>
> > The group that has been working on bibliographic entries for TEI
> > proposes that <biblStruct> with its children <analytic>, <monogr>, and
> > <series> be replaced by two new elements: <biblItem> and
> > <relatedBiblItem>.
> > <quote
> >
> > Does the introduction require the elimination?
> Not if there is a vocal cry for its retention. Though having four
> different ways of doing bibliographic records does seem a little like an
> excess of riches.
> >
> > I ask because the TEI Guidelines offer <bibl>, <biblStruct> and
> > <biblFull>.  The proposal in its current form focuses upon <biblStruct>.
> > Were other options considered? If so what were the pros and cons of
> > focussing upon <biblStruct> to the exclusion of <bibl> or <biblFull>?
> >
> >
> The original proposal was to introduce a fourth kind of <bibl>, but I
> think I am responsible for suggesting that it might be better to
> re-consider one of the existing kinds, and the one with which there
> seemed most overlap was <biblStruct>. Mulling this over again, I am not
> sure whether the group seriously considered using <biblFull> -- this
> does already have a nestable structure.
> Lou

Francois Lachance, Scholar-at-large

A calendar is like a map. And just as maps have insets, calendars in the
21st century might have 'moments' expressed in flat local time fanning out
into "great circles" expressed in earth revolution time.