On Sunday 22 August 2004 22:25, Peter Boot wrote:

> (1) I'm not sure about the need for the <relatedBiblItem>. Can't we
> just use nested <biblItem>'s? A <biblItem> within a <biblItem> will
> necessarily be a related <biblItem>.


The proposed solution with both <biblItem> and <relatedBiblItem>,
however, has the advantage that it can prevent users from applying
the "role" attribute erroneously to a 'top-level' <biblItem>.

> (2) If you decide to point to, rather than include, the description
> of the related item, why not use the available <ref> element? It
> has a type-attribute which can carry values like 'host',
> 'original', etc.

Sure, <ref>/<ptr> and <xref>/<xptr> could replace <relatedBiblItem>
occurrences with "target" and "url" attributes, respectively, with
"type" being substituted for <relatedBiblItem>'s "role" attribute.

The original proposal (which, by the way, was inspired by the MODS's
<relatedItem> and its optional "xlink:href" attribute) appeals to me
because of its uniform treatment of 'modular' and 'non-modular'
storage approaches.

Andreas Nolda
Andreas Nolda

Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Philosophische Fakultät II
Institut für deutsche Sprache und Linguistik