Re: encoding bibliographical references to numbered entries

Stefan and all: Yes, that sounds like a good idea to me, to clarify when biblScope vs citedRange is more appropriate. That note on biblScope is surely misleading, since it encourages us to use it to cite a single page!
 I think both elements are equally versatile for defining any kind of unit for scope or range, whether volume, entry, or page. I think I misunderstood Matthew’s original question, too, because it sounded as if something wasn’t available in citedRange that was on biblScope. In reality they work the same way, and we customize them accordingly! 

I tend in my own projects to use biblScope for any expression of range, so if a project works only with volumes 2 and 3 of a series of 10, I use biblScope to indicate the usage of those particular volumes, when I should be using biblScope only to indicate that there are 10 volumes in a series, and citedRange to indicate my use of volumes 2 and 3. 

Elisa, too much a fan of biblScope!


> On Dec 13, 2016, at 6:49 AM, Stefan Dumont <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi James, hi Matthew,
> 
> thanks for the clarification, because this was new to me! Perhaps we
> should adjust the note in the <biblScope> reference? Right now, it seems
> for me, that the note is (regarding the difference to <citedRange>) a
> little bit missunderstandig:
> 
> "When a single page is being cited, use the @from and @to attributes
> with an identical value. When no clear endpoint is provided, the @from
> attribute should be used without @to. For example, if the citation has
> ‘p. 3ff’ as a page reference."
> 
> Perhaps we could make also a reference to the element <citedRange>?
> 
> Best regards,
> Stefan
> 
> Am 13.12.2016 um 12:19 schrieb James Cummings:
>> On 13/12/16 11:09, MLH wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thanks James et al. I should have noticed that they were only
>>> suggested values! 'entry' makes sense to me in this case although it
>>> would be interesting to hear what other people have done.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> re. Elisa's suggested about <biblScope>: my impression was that
>>> <biblScope> and <citedRange> had rather different functions, the first
>>> describing the pages (or whatever) occupied by a whole cited work
>>> (e.g. chapter in a book), and the second describing the pages cited
>>> from that work in a given reference. For example:
>>> 
>>> A. N. Other, "Example book section", in /Example Book/, <biblScope>pp.
>>> 123-234</biblScope>, at <citedRange>pp. 125-6</citedRange>
>>> 
>> 
>> Hi Matthew,
>> 
>> You are correct in your understanding. Some projects use biblScope where
>> they should use citedRange because citedRange is a more recent addition
>> to the TEI.  It was first added in TEI P5 version 2.3.0
>> http://www.tei-c.org/Vault/P5/2.3.0/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-citedRange.html
>> in January 2013. Before this, biblScope sometimes did double duty to
>> cope with cited ranges as well in some projects.
>> 
>> (Just some history so people are reminded how much the TEI is a
>> developing, community-based standard.)
>> 
>> Those wanting this to be a suggested value... I've added an issue here
>> on github:
>> https://github.com/TEIC/TEI/issues/1555
>> feel free to add your voice, clarifications, or objections there.
>> 
>> -James
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften
> TELOTA-Arbeitsgruppe
> Jägerstraße 22/23
> 10117 Berlin
> 
> Tel.: 030 / 20370 -684
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> www.bbaw.de/telota <http://www.bbaw.de/telota>