Print

Print


On 1/3/2013 9:32 AM, Louis-Dominique Dubeau wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-01-02 at 09:21 -0500, John P. McCaskey wrote:
>> It feels non-obvious, but it makes sense. I think.
> I've reviewed the parts of the TEI documentation that were not fresh in
> my mind and now think that <biblStruct> would model the poem/book or
> poem/book/series relationship (if the book happens to be part of a
> series on poetry) better than <biblFull> would. I find the relationship
> between a poem encoded with <analytic> and the book it appears in
> encoded with <monogr> to be cleaner than trying to make that
> relationship fit the constraints of <biblFull> (non-obvious indeed).
>
> It so happens that in 2008 there was a discussion on <biblStruct> vs
> <biblFull> in this very list:
>
> http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=TEI-L;EFMqmw;20080517164027%2B0200
>
> I've found it instructive.
>
> Louis
Yes, very instructive. The most important for me was the comment, 
"Discussion on this thread seems to have been led astray by the 
assumption that biblFull could do everything biblStruct does. Which it 
doesn't."

I was making that assumption, too. What I am taking away is this:

The "Full" in "biblFull" might lead you to think it is the grand super 
set. But it is not. BiblFull is for describing physical items in 
libraries and for syncing up as best as possible with a few centuries of 
library cataloging practice. If you can't walk into a library and pick 
it up, don't use biblFull. Use biblStruct. If you use biblFull, you will 
be forced to commit an unnatural act.

Thanks,
JPM