<figure> is no help here; I'm not marking up an in-text figure, but
rather a reference to an object in a text:

<p>Picasso painted Les Demoiselles d'Avignon in 1907.</p>

I agree about the absence of a general-purpose "citation" set of
elements in P4. The language in the P4 guidelines, however, is very
biblio-centric: see, for example, the description of <title>,
specifically the description of the level attribute. How would one
translate these concepts (analytic, monographic, journal title, serial
title, unpublished) into a non-print-publishing domain? the m value
seems straightforward, but the others are odd.


On Feb 18, 2005, at 2:14 PM, Julia Flanders wrote:

> I don't know of a more general-purpose "citation" set of elements for
> giving information about non-books. But it doesn't seem outside the
> spirit of <bibl> to use it for citation information on any kind of
> item, whether a book, a printed image, etc. Is there another, better
> set of elements I've somehow missed?
> Perhaps <bibl> should be renamed something else to make this
> clearer--or else there should be an <attribution> element somewhere
> in <figure>...
> best, Julia
> At 1:27 PM -0500 2/18/05, Clifford Wulfman wrote:
>> I'm a bit confused about this use of <bibl>, as you appear to be
>> advocating its use in tagging a non-bibliographic entity. (If I'm
>> wrong
>> on this, forgive me.)  I've been avoiding <bibl> and its sub-elements
>> (like <title>) for non-bibliographic entities, such as paintings,
>> sculptures, etc., but it would certainly simplify my life if I could
>> say
>> <bibl>
>>         <title level="m">Les Demoiselles d'Avignon</title>
>>         <respStmt>
>>                 <name key="ulan.500009666" type="person">Pablo
>> Picasso</name>
>>                 <resp>art</resp>
>>         </respStmt>
>> </bibl>
>> But isn't this tag abuse(tm)?