Different issue, I think, though not unrelated. First, it refers to a
proposal for  future versions of P5, not something my encoders can use

More important, the discussion to which you point pertains, as I
understand it,  to the various manifestations of a bibliographic object
(FRBR, from what I know of it). Picasso's "Demoiselles" isn't a painted
form of a book, so <biblItem type="image" form="paintoncanvas"> isn't

P4 has several specialized tag sets for dealing with different sorts of
named entities: <persName> and <placeName> and kin come to mind. I
don't think I'd consider <biblItem type="place" form="park">Yosemite
National Park</biblItem> a substitute for these!

The LOC's proposed MADS schema atttempts to deal with named entities in
general, but that's another story.


On Feb 18, 2005, at 4:05 PM, Francois Lachance wrote:

> Check the archives.
> A Fri, 20 Aug 2004 posting from Lou points to the work of a group
> devoting
> attention to the TEI and bibliography. One of the proposals is the
> creation in P5 of a "form" attribute
> * form
>   form should be optional. It should indicate the physical form
>   bibliographic entry. A play recorded on a video cassette would look
>   like <biblItem type="performance" form="video-cassette">.
> See
> l&P=R1606&m=4569
>> <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 title, unpublished) into a non-print-publishing domain?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.
>> --Cliff
>> 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)?
> --
> Francois Lachance, Scholar-at-large
> 2005 Year of Comparative Connections. DIA: Comparative connections?
> Connection, first. Comparison, next. DIA: Check. Comparable ways of
> connecting. LOGZ: Selection outcomes, first. Comparative Connections,
> next.