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