Closed nathangibson closed 8 years ago
<idno type="zotero">98</idno>
<imprint>
<date>1920</date>
</imprint>
<biblScope unit="series" from="2" to="2" xml:lang="de">Neue Serie</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="vol" from="9" to="9">9</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="pp" from="121" to="123">121-123</biblScope>
</monogr>`.
I think this should appear as Oriens christianus 9 (1920, series 2), pp: 121-123.
<series>
tag, like so:
` <idno type="zotero">118</idno>
<imprint>
<date>1914</date>
</imprint>
<biblScope unit="vol" from="19" to="19">19</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="pp" from="103" to="105">103-105</biblScope>
@davidamichelson What style guide are we following?
monogr
elements, only the first one should have publication info visualized (rather than both, as is happening now).@nathangibson to clarify, in the above you are displaying the second monograph first with only title and vol? Do editors/authors come from first monograph or from the following monographs, or can I assume they will always have the same editor/authors (probably not). Thanks!
I've implemented some <relatedItem>
usage for translations and reprints (e.g., bibl/997), but we'll need to discuss with @davidamichelson how this info should be best coded and visualized. (Typically, this is where Zanetti used an "=".)
@nathangibson I thought we were encoding citedRange in the works/bibl, not the biblStruct? Current XSLT ignores tei:biblScope/@unit="pp" in tei:biblStruct in favor of the tei:citedRange in the work record. Perhaps this can be something we go over during our next meeting.
@nathangibson Thanks, I will take a look. For reference here is an earlier issue created by @tacarlson: #362 The issue is closed, but I see a lot of the same formatting issues that were reported in #362 are still a problem.
Thanks!
Should I merge these issues?
Sure.
Oh, sorry, not figuring out how to do that.
Hum, does not look like you can. Referencing the issue in this issue should be fine. It will link them, and should notify anyone on the other issue of new changes.
OK, thanks.
persName
s inside author, as well as alternate title
s, all labeled with different language codes. So the stylesheet should be able to pick one language and use just that one. It looks like it is correctly picking only one author/persName and one monogr/title, but is trying to spit out both analytic/titles. I think we'll prefer to show the original language script ("ru", "ar", "syr", "el") rather than the transliteration. (Eventually, this might be a user setting???)<note>
elements inside <citedRange>
inside parentheses? E.g., http://wwwb.library.vanderbilt.edu/work/980#bibl980-6 should have "pp: 286-289 (dans note)"Another example of titled volumes is http://wwwb.library.vanderbilt.edu/work/980#bibl980-6, which is only rendering one of the monogr/titles and is duplicating the author name. This should be J.S. Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis Clementino-Vaticana, vol. 1, De scriptoribus Syris Nestorianis (Rome: n.p., 1725)...
<series>
info is not rendering at all.
monogr
element immediately preceding it. So if there are multiple monogr and series elements, the order does matter. If you want an example of the most complex biblStruct element I have yet come across, it is bibl/1072.@nathangibson This contradicts an earlier request to have series displayed in ().
My opinion is that this should appear as Revue de l'Orient chrétien 19 (1914) (=Revue de l'Orient chrétien, series 2, vol. 9), pp: 103-105.
I'm having trouble distinguishing the two different series rendering based on code in the TEI, can you clarify when to use each display? Thanks!
<note type="flag">
for internal comments about stuff we should check. Would you mind suppressing the visualization of these notes?@nathangibson do notes appear in places other then t:citedRange?
OK, that's it for now. Thanks for all your hard work, and let me know if you have questions.
@nathangibson Awesome thanks for the list. I will let you know as changes get made. I think there is some conflicting code in the citation stylesheets, so this may take a few days to get everything ironed out.
Great. It's also possible that I've made some encoding decisions that conflict with our previous ones. If you come across anything like that, let me know and we'll try to figure out how to resolve them.
@nathangibson First pass is up on dev. Will need to discuss a few issues before I make more progress. Thanks for all your work putting together the list.
Thanks @wsalesky ! Yes, it's an improvement. Perhaps one of the issues you're referring to: journal articles are still showing with "n.p., " in front of the date for "no publisher" -- that can just be removed (for journal articles only)
@nathangibson I think I caught all the issues we discussed. My notes from the meeting could have been better. Let me know if you find anything I missed, or anything new. Thanks.
OK, I’ll take a look.
@nathangibson Have I managed to resolve all of these? I think so. If yes, you can close the ticket.
@wsalesky No, unfortunately there are still issues. Sorry to be slow getting back to you. Some I may have missed earlier. Some examples:
That's all I see for now. I can take another look after you fix those. Thanks so much!
I think we need to standardize how we are indicating titles that have been transliterated. See some of the differences in these two examples:
http://wwwb.library.vanderbilt.edu/bibl/1039/tei (Transliteration indicated by xml:lang=''en-x-gedsh")
and http://wwwb.library.vanderbilt.edu/bibl/738/tei (Transliteration indicated by xml:lang="ru-Latn-iso9r95")
Can we either standardize the xml:lang attributes for transliterations, or perhaps there is an additional attribute that can indicate either transliterated format, or indicate "primary" format?
Thoughts? I can code the xslt to include all the variations on xml:lang attribute, but I think that would be a messy, harder to maintain solution.
Yes, I agree. Actually, I think we could probably just remove the transliterations of titles which we are planning to display in their original script. Thoughts, @davidamichelson ?
I think "en-x-gedsh" is the primary problem. It kind-of makes sense for names, which have a mixture of English and Syriac transliteration (e.g., "Pawla of Edessa"). But if something is purely a transliteration, perhaps we should use ar-Latn-gedsh or syr-Latn-gedsh, etc.?
Okay, I think I have caught all of these. We will still need to discuss xml:lang normalization.
@davidamichelson @dlschwartz So, I remember we decided not to transliterate bibliographic entries for Russian, Greek, Armenian, etc. -- just to display these in their original scripts.
However, did we for sure decide not to provide transliterations for Syriac and Arabic bibliographic info, in addition to the original script? I want to check before removing these transliterations, which are currently messing up the display of citations (e.g., http://wwwb.library.vanderbilt.edu/exist/apps/srophe/bibl/646). The advantage of having both transliterated and original scripts is that people will be able to find them easier in search and browse. The disadvantage is that we have to code when to use which script.
We can choose a title to use, there are currently no rules for handling multiple scripts. Related to this issue as well I think: #569
Not sure if this is the right place to put this. There are issues with visualization of bibliography Editions/Translations/Ancient Versions. E.g., http://syriaca.org/work/396 edition 1:
Bedjan, P.AMS 6vol: 6, : p. 465-499.
- Spaces are not showing up between elements (author, title, etc.)
- Info doesn't seem to be grabbed from the bibl record indicated in the ptr (e.g., title is abbreviation instead of full title here http://syriaca.org/bibl/1697).
- Link icons to works cited module and external cites don't display. Instead entire item is visualized as a link.
Perhaps this is related to stylesheet changes made for #724 ?
Re. bibls inside notes: NSHL suggested schema does not put editions, translations, etc. inside notes as BHSE does. We could convert BHSE to this format. An example of the NHSL format is http://wwwb.library.vanderbilt.edu/work/2501.
For reference, an example of a bibl inside a prose note (e.g., abstract) that should not be visualized as a full citation is http://wwwb.library.vanderbilt.edu/person/2171, which however points to a work entity.
Another example of bibl inside abstract is wwwb.library.vanderbilt.edu/person/2211. Example of bibl inside note for editions/translations/ancient versions is any BHSE record.
@nathangibson Please take a look now: http://wwwb.library.vanderbilt.edu/work/270
I will do some spot checking to make sure I haven't messed up any other display and if you could do so as well that would be helpful. Thanks!
Thanks this is looking great now!
Okay. I will push the changes to the production server. Thanks.
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:40 AM, nathangibson notifications@github.com wrote:
Thanks this is looking great now!
— You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/srophe/srophe-eXist-app/issues/469#issuecomment-249210880, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABHTTnXdU9tXtg6EhUexQe0kMv9DSjU9ks5qs-TOgaJpZM4G-DzP .
Updated.
@wsalesky , I've uploaded the new bibls from Zanetti and replaced the bibl elements in works using the scripts you wrote earlier. I'll log here the display issues I see as they're visualized on the HTML pages: