I just want to double-check something with the library people. This
definition of monograph (from TEI), is incorrect; right?
> In common library practice a clear distinction is made between an
> individual item within a larger collection and a free-standing book,
> journal, or collection. Similarly a book in a series is distinguished
> sharply from the series within which it appears. An article forming
> of a collection which itself appears in a series thus has a
> bibliographic description with three quite distinct levels of
> 1. the analytic level, giving the title, author, etc., of the
> 2. the monographic level, giving the title, editor, etc., of the
> 3. the series level, giving the title of the series, possibly the
> names of its editors, etc., and the number of the volume within that
> In the same way, an article in a journal requires at least two levels
> information: the analytic level describing the article itself, and the
> monographic level describing the journal.
My understanding is that a monograph is also defined by its issuance as
much as its standalone quality, and that one also needs a notion of
serial (the two are collapsed here it seems to me).