-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 88
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
bibl
as loose model is not loose enough
#1784
Comments
@GVogeler Are you thinking that we should extend |
@scstanley7 You might have some thoughts on this one for classification purposes... |
@ebeshero yes, this seems sensible to me. |
I'm not adverse to that. A more flexible Of course it isn't possible just to have model.biblPart include model.msItemPart since they both have some of the same elements we'd end up with ambiguous content models, I think? We might have to refactor things into intermediate classes. It would seem a bit weird to have both msIdentifier and msItem together there to me, but I'm not that worried. |
I otoh am decidely averse to the idea of recklessly adding everything in msItemPart into msBiblPart. . For example, model.msItemPart includes msItem, so msItems can self-nest. Which bibls most definitely cannot. (Cue long boring argument about biblipraphic standards) By all means make a principled selection of members of the former which could also be in the latter, though |
Besides Is there any reason we shouldn't do model.msQuoteLike and a freestanding |
I can imagine quoteLike (consider a text on a biblical quotation) and filiation (consider a text identified as the copy/translation of another text) as well. |
@scstanley7 @lb42 considering references of review articles which use the bibliography of the reviewed item as a core identification element I don't see why the |
I don't want to put brakes into the implementation of already any small extension to |
@GVogeler I stand corrected: bibl is a member of biblPart and can thus self-nest. BUT I THINK THAT'S CRAZY! bibliographic entries are supposed to be flat. That's why we have relatedItem (which surely is a better way of handling filiation). |
@GVogeler where does it say that a bibl corresponds with a frbr:item? I am pretty sure that it was not intended to originally: that was in fact one of the major reasons for inventing msDesc. |
It's not crazy to nest bibls. A series contains monograph-level items, and monograph-level items contain articles or poems (analytic level). Real bibliographical objects nest, and |
@lb42 I compared I see the conceptualization of |
In medieval/manuscript studies there are a very large number of existing bibliographical tools that contain incipits (often many) and often explicits, as a way of exactly identifying the text cited (which may or may not have a title or titles). Stegmueller's Repertories of Biblical texts and Sentence commentaries, the Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina, etc, are just a few examples. I think |
Council agrees to (directly) add |
Fixed by 65d514e and tested. |
The specification of
bibl
in the current specification is considered an element for any loosely-structured bibliographic description. For this reason it takes several msDesc and biblFull subelements as possible content. It excludes elements likeincipit
ordecoNote
. As incipits can replace titles and the physical features of a bibliographic entity are more than just dimensions I would suggest to extend the biblPart model by these (and maybe further) elements.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: