<publicationStmt>

[arlogriffiths]

@danbalogh and @michaelnmmeyer — can you clarify where we stand at the moment re. <publicationStmt> in our encoding model(s)?

@ajaniak and I need to know what, if anything, still needs to be changed in the following example:

<publicationStmt>   
<authority><ref target="{URI for DHARMA website}>DHARMA</ref></authority>         
<pubPlace>Lyon (France) and Lexington, VA (USA)</pubPlace>            
<idno type="filename">DHARMA_CritEdSvayambhu.xml</idno>            
<availability>               
<licence target="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">                  
<p>This work is licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported Licence. To view a copy of the licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA.</p>                  
<p>Copyright © 2019-2025 by Arlo Griffiths and Tim Lubin.</p>               
</licence>            
</availability>            
<date from="2019" to="2025">2019-2025</date> 
</publicationStmt>

If decisions are waiting to be taken, let's taken them now and move on.

[danbalogh]

On idno and licence, see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WA7Hoe2MtkXRQpE1UcfVETvc4knG66zj2nfI5YD2q_c/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.s6n4v0irvwkq
The gist:

• <idno type="filename">DHARMA_CritEdSvayambhu.xml</idno> is final
• for licence, the final word seems to be BY-SA 4.0, hence <licence target="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0//">
  • as Michaël notes there, some of our files use BY 3.0 and others BY 4.0; it remains to decide whether all existing files are to be updated to BY-SA 4.0
• we have not taken a decision on the <p>This work is licenced under the Creative Commons... part
  • I still think this paragraph could just be deleted as redundant next to the licence URL
  • if it is to be retained, then update contents to reflect the licence change
• <p>Copyright © 2019-2025 by Arlo Griffiths and Tim Lubin.</p> is to be deleted; we have agreed not to put a hard copyright line into our files (only generate one for display)

Other details unchanged, as far as I know.

[arlogriffiths]

Thanks. For <authority>, can we use dharmalekha.info the website rather than DHARMA (implying the ERC project)?

We have <projectDesc> to specify if the contribution to our database was made by/for the ERC project DHARMA or some other project. At this time, I am working with a student of Andrea Acri's who is editing texts to be published via dharmalekha.info but not produced with DHARMA funding.

[danbalogh]

What we put in <authority> makes no difference to me, provided that the PIs agree.

[arlogriffiths]

@manufrancis and @michaelnmmeyer — I guess nobody really cares. So may I suggest we implement

<authority><ref target="{URI for dharmalekha website}>dharmalekha.info</ref></authority>
or
<authority><ref target="{URI for dharmalekha website}>The dharmalekha consortium</ref></authority>

Either way, we will need to include some information at dharmalekha on the background of creation of the database, and the people taking decisions about it. The dharmalekha consortium that I imagine would be an (informal) new avatar of the formal DHARMA consortium, but open to other people who are able to contribute significantly in terms of data, documentation or funding.

[manufrancis]

This is fine with me and in line with my latest discussion with Andrea.