As someone who stripped out most of our bibliographies when migrating to ASpace, this one is a bit of a can of worms, as they can be super big and elaborate but I think we should just try and format bibref into a list. Example: https://github.com/UAlbanyArchives/collections/blob/4ede2996e8b87c215dd55d1d15ac04b42db28602/apap/apap030.xml#L44

@gwiedeman @mmmmcode EAD question related to bibliography...

It's suggested in the comment above to not fully render bibliography and instead only render bibref elements into a list. If that's the consensus, should we collect them from any elements that they are allowed to be within, or only if they happen to be children of a bibliography element?

We don't usually address all possibilities for an element, as its really hard and EAD has a lot of long tail possibilities that are rarely if every used, if ever. I think <bibliography> can be nested within <bibliography> theoretically forever which is a bit crazy.

I would say most <bibliography>s look like the example in the EAD tag library.

I think the two options are to just render the text like we do with many elements, which would probably require local customization depending on your encoding. Or try to render <bibref>s into a list which probably covers most, but not all, use cases. I'm probably for trying to just generally format <bibref>s into a list.

Thanks @gwiedeman . I may not have asked that very clearly. I was wondering about indexing/displaying a bibref depending on where it is found. According to the spec it can be within lots of different elements, but I was wondering if you thought we should pick them up regardless of where they are, or only if if they are a direct child/descendant of a bibliography element, which would scope it to this issue as it reads.

The EAD you linked to is an example of the latter, but in our fixtures I see bibref in elements not descendant of bibliography (i.e. one case I found they are list items inside a scopecontent element .)

Ah, sorry I misunderstood. Yes, that is a long tail use case. I don't think they're actually valid in <scopecontent> but they are in other odd places. I'd be curious to what @mmmmcode and others think for the limits of this. It would be nice to format it wherever if its a low lift, but <bibliography> is probably the main use for it. I think the formatting would be the same in whatever context.

Thanks again @gwiedeman . I think I'll keep it scoped to bibliography for starters, but if someone had a different opinion it would be really easy to change. We would just change the xpath selector in the indexer to broaden the scope, but all the other parts I will add as part of this will be the same.