Textual contents of book cover and <titlePage>

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Textual contents of book cover and <titlePage>

Jakub Simek
Dear list,

I have two questions about encoding front matter in books like the textual content of the cover or the dust jacket. There has been a discussion touching this topic on this list in 2012 (as far as I can see), e.g. under https://listserv.brown.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=TEI-L;79305641.1209, and the proposals where either using several <titlePage> elements or several <div> elements.

Now, firstly, I do not have a good feeling about using <titlePage> for the content of a cover. They are not the same thing, are they?

But secondly, if one would decide to use <div> (certainly with some typing), several essential elements which would be needed for the cover content are only allowed inside of <titlePage>. Actually, the usual <titlePage> children coming from the "textstructure" module (some starting with "doc" in their element name) do not behave all the same way:

- <docAuthor> can be used inside of <div>
- <docDate> can be used inside of <div>
- <argument> can be used inside of <div>
- <byline> can be used inside of <div>
- <epigraph> can be used inside of <div>

BUT

- <docEdition> can only be used inside of <front>, <back> or <titlePage>
- <docImprint> can only be used inside of <front>, <back> or <titlePage>
- <docTitle> can only be used inside of <front>, <back> or <titlePage>
- <titlePart> can only be used inside of <front>, <back>, <titlePage> or <docTitle>  

AND

- <imprimatur> can be used inside of <titlePage> only.

I am especially wondering about the unequal treatment of e.g. <docAuthor> and <docTitle>, the definitions of which both state that the element documents a text given on the title page:

"<docAuthor> (document author) contains the name of the author of the document, as given on the title page (often but not always contained in a byline)."

"<docTitle> (document title) contains the title of a document, including all its constituents, as given on a title page."

But the former can be used inside of <div> while the latter cannot.

Would it not be reasonable to allow more "textstructure" elements inside of <div> for use in specific front matter divisions? Or do you consider <titlePage> flexible enough to be used for things like cover or dust jacket? A disadvantage of <titlePage> certainly would be the impossibility of further subdivisions like "cover" > "front cover" etc., while <div>s could be nested hierarchically inside each other.

Thanks in advance for any hints!

Best wishes,
Jakub

---
Dr. Jakub Simek
Heidelberg University Library
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Textual contents of book cover and <titlePage>

Kevin Hawkins
As you may know, there is a tradition in library cataloging of ignoring
the book cover.  For modern books, this is because the book may have
been published with a removable dust jacket or in multiple bindings
(both hardcover and paperback), with different information on the cover
though the interior is the same.  As for older books, printers often
sold the leaves unbound, leaving it to the customer to have the book
bound as desired -- so once again, the intellectual content of the work
is the same regardless of the binding.

If you agree with this perspective, then you probably would not really
consider the textual content of the cover or dust jacket to be part of
the front matter but rather something separate from the text of the work
itself.  So you might create a new <binding> element as a sibling of
<text>.  Inside <binding>, you could create whatever child elements you
think are appropriate for capturing the content of the cover or dust jacket.

And even if you don't, I still think you should create a <binding>
element, but maybe you would make it a child of <text> or <front>.  It
seems to me that the cover or dust jacket is fundamentally different
from a title page and (other types of) front matter.

Kevin

On 7/29/19 10:08 AM, Jakub Simek wrote:

> Dear list,
>
> I have two questions about encoding front matter in books like the textual content of the cover or the dust jacket. There has been a discussion touching this topic on this list in 2012 (as far as I can see), e.g. under https://listserv.brown.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=TEI-L;79305641.1209, and the proposals where either using several <titlePage> elements or several <div> elements.
>
> Now, firstly, I do not have a good feeling about using <titlePage> for the content of a cover. They are not the same thing, are they?
>
> But secondly, if one would decide to use <div> (certainly with some typing), several essential elements which would be needed for the cover content are only allowed inside of <titlePage>. Actually, the usual <titlePage> children coming from the "textstructure" module (some starting with "doc" in their element name) do not behave all the same way:
>
> - <docAuthor> can be used inside of <div>
> - <docDate> can be used inside of <div>
> - <argument> can be used inside of <div>
> - <byline> can be used inside of <div>
> - <epigraph> can be used inside of <div>
>
> BUT
>
> - <docEdition> can only be used inside of <front>, <back> or <titlePage>
> - <docImprint> can only be used inside of <front>, <back> or <titlePage>
> - <docTitle> can only be used inside of <front>, <back> or <titlePage>
> - <titlePart> can only be used inside of <front>, <back>, <titlePage> or <docTitle>
>
> AND
>
> - <imprimatur> can be used inside of <titlePage> only.
>
> I am especially wondering about the unequal treatment of e.g. <docAuthor> and <docTitle>, the definitions of which both state that the element documents a text given on the title page:
>
> "<docAuthor> (document author) contains the name of the author of the document, as given on the title page (often but not always contained in a byline)."
>
> "<docTitle> (document title) contains the title of a document, including all its constituents, as given on a title page."
>
> But the former can be used inside of <div> while the latter cannot.
>
> Would it not be reasonable to allow more "textstructure" elements inside of <div> for use in specific front matter divisions? Or do you consider <titlePage> flexible enough to be used for things like cover or dust jacket? A disadvantage of <titlePage> certainly would be the impossibility of further subdivisions like "cover" > "front cover" etc., while <div>s could be nested hierarchically inside each other.
>
> Thanks in advance for any hints!
>
> Best wishes,
> Jakub
>
> ---
> Dr. Jakub Simek
> Heidelberg University Library
>
lou
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Textual contents of book cover and <titlePage>

lou
.... and indeed the TEI already provides a <binding> element, (within <bindingDesc> within <physDesc> within <msDesc>) thus making it explicit that whatever you might want to say about the binding/cover is not about the text, but a part of the metadata associated with one particular instantiation of the text.

I am however surprised to see that <docAuthor> and <docTitle> are permitted outside a titlePage.



On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 17:20, Kevin Hawkins <[hidden email]> wrote:
As you may know, there is a tradition in library cataloging of ignoring
the book cover.  For modern books, this is because the book may have
been published with a removable dust jacket or in multiple bindings
(both hardcover and paperback), with different information on the cover
though the interior is the same.  As for older books, printers often
sold the leaves unbound, leaving it to the customer to have the book
bound as desired -- so once again, the intellectual content of the work
is the same regardless of the binding.

If you agree with this perspective, then you probably would not really
consider the textual content of the cover or dust jacket to be part of
the front matter but rather something separate from the text of the work
itself.  So you might create a new <binding> element as a sibling of
<text>.  Inside <binding>, you could create whatever child elements you
think are appropriate for capturing the content of the cover or dust jacket.

And even if you don't, I still think you should create a <binding>
element, but maybe you would make it a child of <text> or <front>.  It
seems to me that the cover or dust jacket is fundamentally different
from a title page and (other types of) front matter.

Kevin

On 7/29/19 10:08 AM, Jakub Simek wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> I have two questions about encoding front matter in books like the textual content of the cover or the dust jacket. There has been a discussion touching this topic on this list in 2012 (as far as I can see), e.g. under https://listserv.brown.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=TEI-L;79305641.1209, and the proposals where either using several <titlePage> elements or several <div> elements.
>
> Now, firstly, I do not have a good feeling about using <titlePage> for the content of a cover. They are not the same thing, are they?
>
> But secondly, if one would decide to use <div> (certainly with some typing), several essential elements which would be needed for the cover content are only allowed inside of <titlePage>. Actually, the usual <titlePage> children coming from the "textstructure" module (some starting with "doc" in their element name) do not behave all the same way:
>
> - <docAuthor> can be used inside of <div>
> - <docDate> can be used inside of <div>
> - <argument> can be used inside of <div>
> - <byline> can be used inside of <div>
> - <epigraph> can be used inside of <div>
>
> BUT
>
> - <docEdition> can only be used inside of <front>, <back> or <titlePage>
> - <docImprint> can only be used inside of <front>, <back> or <titlePage>
> - <docTitle> can only be used inside of <front>, <back> or <titlePage>
> - <titlePart> can only be used inside of <front>, <back>, <titlePage> or <docTitle>
>
> AND
>
> - <imprimatur> can be used inside of <titlePage> only.
>
> I am especially wondering about the unequal treatment of e.g. <docAuthor> and <docTitle>, the definitions of which both state that the element documents a text given on the title page:
>
> "<docAuthor> (document author) contains the name of the author of the document, as given on the title page (often but not always contained in a byline)."
>
> "<docTitle> (document title) contains the title of a document, including all its constituents, as given on a title page."
>
> But the former can be used inside of <div> while the latter cannot.
>
> Would it not be reasonable to allow more "textstructure" elements inside of <div> for use in specific front matter divisions? Or do you consider <titlePage> flexible enough to be used for things like cover or dust jacket? A disadvantage of <titlePage> certainly would be the impossibility of further subdivisions like "cover" > "front cover" etc., while <div>s could be nested hierarchically inside each other.
>
> Thanks in advance for any hints!
>
> Best wishes,
> Jakub
>
> ---
> Dr. Jakub Simek
> Heidelberg University Library
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Textual contents of book cover and <titlePage>

Paul Schaffner
In reply to this post by Kevin Hawkins
And of course there are lots and lots of books -- even or even especially
modern books -- in which the cover, whether removable or otherwise, serves as what
amounts to the title page, often since there is no other. Probably most
commercial sales catalogues fall into this group (I collect these),
many magazines, and some textbooks, especially custom textbooks or textbooks
that are trying to look more approachable and more like magazines. And lots
of catalogue records that treat the cover as such ("title from cover" or
"title from container" etc.). In my personal cataloguing (i.e. of
my 15,000 personal books), I generally treat cover information as
on a par with title-page information, supplying multiple title and
author elements where they differ.

This is possibly one of the reasons I have generally eschewed the
TEI titlepage and its contents entirely, and simply made title pages
and other metadata-supplying portions of the book (such as half-titles
and docket titles) divs within front.

pfs

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019, at 12:32, Kevin Hawkins wrote:

> As you may know, there is a tradition in library cataloging of ignoring
> the book cover.  For modern books, this is because the book may have
> been published with a removable dust jacket or in multiple bindings
> (both hardcover and paperback), with different information on the cover
> though the interior is the same.  As for older books, printers often
> sold the leaves unbound, leaving it to the customer to have the book
> bound as desired -- so once again, the intellectual content of the work
> is the same regardless of the binding.
>
> If you agree with this perspective, then you probably would not really
> consider the textual content of the cover or dust jacket to be part of
> the front matter but rather something separate from the text of the work
> itself.  So you might create a new <binding> element as a sibling of
> <text>.  Inside <binding>, you could create whatever child elements you
> think are appropriate for capturing the content of the cover or dust jacket.
>
> And even if you don't, I still think you should create a <binding>
> element, but maybe you would make it a child of <text> or <front>.  It
> seems to me that the cover or dust jacket is fundamentally different
> from a title page and (other types of) front matter.
>
> Kevin
>
> On 7/29/19 10:08 AM, Jakub Simek wrote:
> > Dear list,
> >
> > I have two questions about encoding front matter in books like the textual content of the cover or the dust jacket. There has been a discussion touching this topic on this list in 2012 (as far as I can see), e.g. under https://listserv.brown.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=TEI-L;79305641.1209, and the proposals where either using several <titlePage> elements or several <div> elements.
> >
> > Now, firstly, I do not have a good feeling about using <titlePage> for the content of a cover. They are not the same thing, are they?
> >
> > But secondly, if one would decide to use <div> (certainly with some typing), several essential elements which would be needed for the cover content are only allowed inside of <titlePage>. Actually, the usual <titlePage> children coming from the "textstructure" module (some starting with "doc" in their element name) do not behave all the same way:
> >
> > - <docAuthor> can be used inside of <div>
> > - <docDate> can be used inside of <div>
> > - <argument> can be used inside of <div>
> > - <byline> can be used inside of <div>
> > - <epigraph> can be used inside of <div>
> >
> > BUT
> >
> > - <docEdition> can only be used inside of <front>, <back> or <titlePage>
> > - <docImprint> can only be used inside of <front>, <back> or <titlePage>
> > - <docTitle> can only be used inside of <front>, <back> or <titlePage>
> > - <titlePart> can only be used inside of <front>, <back>, <titlePage> or <docTitle>
> >
> > AND
> >
> > - <imprimatur> can be used inside of <titlePage> only.
> >
> > I am especially wondering about the unequal treatment of e.g. <docAuthor> and <docTitle>, the definitions of which both state that the element documents a text given on the title page:
> >
> > "<docAuthor> (document author) contains the name of the author of the document, as given on the title page (often but not always contained in a byline)."
> >
> > "<docTitle> (document title) contains the title of a document, including all its constituents, as given on a title page."
> >
> > But the former can be used inside of <div> while the latter cannot.
> >
> > Would it not be reasonable to allow more "textstructure" elements inside of <div> for use in specific front matter divisions? Or do you consider <titlePage> flexible enough to be used for things like cover or dust jacket? A disadvantage of <titlePage> certainly would be the impossibility of further subdivisions like "cover" > "front cover" etc., while <div>s could be nested hierarchically inside each other.
> >
> > Thanks in advance for any hints!
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Jakub
> >
> > ---
> > Dr. Jakub Simek
> > Heidelberg University Library
> >
>

--
Paul Schaffner  Digital Content & Collections
University of Michigan Libraries
[hidden email] | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Textual contents of book cover and <titlePage>

Paul Schaffner
Here, for example, are three works with no title pages
except the covers shown here; the catalogues, respectively,
of Simmons Hardware (1912), Freres Peugeot (1938), and
Craftsman Tools (1964).

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~pfs/tei/cat_cover_simmons_1912.jpg
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~pfs/tei/cat_cover_peugeot_1938.jpg
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~pfs/tei/cat_cover_craftsman_1964.jpg

Pamphlets are often similarly arranged.

pfs


On Tue, Jul 30, 2019, at 13:16, Paul Schaffner wrote:

> And of course there are lots and lots of books -- even or even
> especially
> modern books -- in which the cover, whether removable or otherwise,
> serves as what
> amounts to the title page, often since there is no other. Probably most
> commercial sales catalogues fall into this group (I collect these),
> many magazines, and some textbooks, especially custom textbooks or
> textbooks
> that are trying to look more approachable and more like magazines. And
> lots
> of catalogue records that treat the cover as such ("title from cover" or
> "title from container" etc.). In my personal cataloguing (i.e. of
> my 15,000 personal books), I generally treat cover information as
> on a par with title-page information, supplying multiple title and
> author elements where they differ.
>
> This is possibly one of the reasons I have generally eschewed the
> TEI titlepage and its contents entirely, and simply made title pages
> and other metadata-supplying portions of the book (such as half-titles
> and docket titles) divs within front.
>
> pfs
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019, at 12:32, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
> > As you may know, there is a tradition in library cataloging of ignoring
> > the book cover.  For modern books, this is because the book may have
> > been published with a removable dust jacket or in multiple bindings
> > (both hardcover and paperback), with different information on the cover
> > though the interior is the same.  As for older books, printers often
> > sold the leaves unbound, leaving it to the customer to have the book
> > bound as desired -- so once again, the intellectual content of the work
> > is the same regardless of the binding.
> >
> > If you agree with this perspective, then you probably would not really
> > consider the textual content of the cover or dust jacket to be part of
> > the front matter but rather something separate from the text of the work
> > itself.  So you might create a new <binding> element as a sibling of
> > <text>.  Inside <binding>, you could create whatever child elements you
> > think are appropriate for capturing the content of the cover or dust jacket.
> >
> > And even if you don't, I still think you should create a <binding>
> > element, but maybe you would make it a child of <text> or <front>.  It
> > seems to me that the cover or dust jacket is fundamentally different
> > from a title page and (other types of) front matter.
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> > On 7/29/19 10:08 AM, Jakub Simek wrote:
> > > Dear list,
> > >
> > > I have two questions about encoding front matter in books like the textual content of the cover or the dust jacket. There has been a discussion touching this topic on this list in 2012 (as far as I can see), e.g. under https://listserv.brown.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=TEI-L;79305641.1209, and the proposals where either using several <titlePage> elements or several <div> elements.
> > >
> > > Now, firstly, I do not have a good feeling about using <titlePage> for the content of a cover. They are not the same thing, are they?
> > >
> > > But secondly, if one would decide to use <div> (certainly with some typing), several essential elements which would be needed for the cover content are only allowed inside of <titlePage>. Actually, the usual <titlePage> children coming from the "textstructure" module (some starting with "doc" in their element name) do not behave all the same way:
> > >
> > > - <docAuthor> can be used inside of <div>
> > > - <docDate> can be used inside of <div>
> > > - <argument> can be used inside of <div>
> > > - <byline> can be used inside of <div>
> > > - <epigraph> can be used inside of <div>
> > >
> > > BUT
> > >
> > > - <docEdition> can only be used inside of <front>, <back> or <titlePage>
> > > - <docImprint> can only be used inside of <front>, <back> or <titlePage>
> > > - <docTitle> can only be used inside of <front>, <back> or <titlePage>
> > > - <titlePart> can only be used inside of <front>, <back>, <titlePage> or <docTitle>
> > >
> > > AND
> > >
> > > - <imprimatur> can be used inside of <titlePage> only.
> > >
> > > I am especially wondering about the unequal treatment of e.g. <docAuthor> and <docTitle>, the definitions of which both state that the element documents a text given on the title page:
> > >
> > > "<docAuthor> (document author) contains the name of the author of the document, as given on the title page (often but not always contained in a byline)."
> > >
> > > "<docTitle> (document title) contains the title of a document, including all its constituents, as given on a title page."
> > >
> > > But the former can be used inside of <div> while the latter cannot.
> > >
> > > Would it not be reasonable to allow more "textstructure" elements inside of <div> for use in specific front matter divisions? Or do you consider <titlePage> flexible enough to be used for things like cover or dust jacket? A disadvantage of <titlePage> certainly would be the impossibility of further subdivisions like "cover" > "front cover" etc., while <div>s could be nested hierarchically inside each other.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance for any hints!
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Jakub
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Dr. Jakub Simek
> > > Heidelberg University Library
> > >
> >
>
> --
> Paul Schaffner  Digital Content & Collections
> University of Michigan Libraries
> [hidden email] | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/
>

--
Paul Schaffner  Digital Content & Collections
University of Michigan Libraries
[hidden email] | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Textual contents of book cover and <titlePage>

Kevin Hawkins
In reply to this post by lou

Ah yes, I had forgotten about the existing <binding>, which is used for a prose description of a binding.  If Jakub wants to include a transcription of text on the binding, he could create a <bindingText> element as a child of <bindingDesc> and put the transcription there.  That might be better than my proposal to create a sibling of <text>.

As for my alternative option -- creating a child element of <text> or <front> -- that would certainly be appropriate for the cases that Paul mentioned (which often use stitched and sewn bindings).  To avoid confusion with the existing <binding> element, the child of <text> or <front> might be called <bindingText> or something else.

Kevin

On 7/30/19 11:31 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
.... and indeed the TEI already provides a <binding> element, (within <bindingDesc> within <physDesc> within <msDesc>) thus making it explicit that whatever you might want to say about the binding/cover is not about the text, but a part of the metadata associated with one particular instantiation of the text.

I am however surprised to see that <docAuthor> and <docTitle> are permitted outside a titlePage.



On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 17:20, Kevin Hawkins <[hidden email]> wrote:
As you may know, there is a tradition in library cataloging of ignoring
the book cover.  For modern books, this is because the book may have
been published with a removable dust jacket or in multiple bindings
(both hardcover and paperback), with different information on the cover
though the interior is the same.  As for older books, printers often
sold the leaves unbound, leaving it to the customer to have the book
bound as desired -- so once again, the intellectual content of the work
is the same regardless of the binding.

If you agree with this perspective, then you probably would not really
consider the textual content of the cover or dust jacket to be part of
the front matter but rather something separate from the text of the work
itself.  So you might create a new <binding> element as a sibling of
<text>.  Inside <binding>, you could create whatever child elements you
think are appropriate for capturing the content of the cover or dust jacket.

And even if you don't, I still think you should create a <binding>
element, but maybe you would make it a child of <text> or <front>.  It
seems to me that the cover or dust jacket is fundamentally different
from a title page and (other types of) front matter.

Kevin

On 7/29/19 10:08 AM, Jakub Simek wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> I have two questions about encoding front matter in books like the textual content of the cover or the dust jacket. There has been a discussion touching this topic on this list in 2012 (as far as I can see), e.g. under https://listserv.brown.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=TEI-L;79305641.1209, and the proposals where either using several <titlePage> elements or several <div> elements.
>
> Now, firstly, I do not have a good feeling about using <titlePage> for the content of a cover. They are not the same thing, are they?
>
> But secondly, if one would decide to use <div> (certainly with some typing), several essential elements which would be needed for the cover content are only allowed inside of <titlePage>. Actually, the usual <titlePage> children coming from the "textstructure" module (some starting with "doc" in their element name) do not behave all the same way:
>
> - <docAuthor> can be used inside of <div>
> - <docDate> can be used inside of <div>
> - <argument> can be used inside of <div>
> - <byline> can be used inside of <div>
> - <epigraph> can be used inside of <div>
>
> BUT
>
> - <docEdition> can only be used inside of <front>, <back> or <titlePage>
> - <docImprint> can only be used inside of <front>, <back> or <titlePage>
> - <docTitle> can only be used inside of <front>, <back> or <titlePage>
> - <titlePart> can only be used inside of <front>, <back>, <titlePage> or <docTitle>
>
> AND
>
> - <imprimatur> can be used inside of <titlePage> only.
>
> I am especially wondering about the unequal treatment of e.g. <docAuthor> and <docTitle>, the definitions of which both state that the element documents a text given on the title page:
>
> "<docAuthor> (document author) contains the name of the author of the document, as given on the title page (often but not always contained in a byline)."
>
> "<docTitle> (document title) contains the title of a document, including all its constituents, as given on a title page."
>
> But the former can be used inside of <div> while the latter cannot.
>
> Would it not be reasonable to allow more "textstructure" elements inside of <div> for use in specific front matter divisions? Or do you consider <titlePage> flexible enough to be used for things like cover or dust jacket? A disadvantage of <titlePage> certainly would be the impossibility of further subdivisions like "cover" > "front cover" etc., while <div>s could be nested hierarchically inside each other.
>
> Thanks in advance for any hints!
>
> Best wishes,
> Jakub
>
> ---
> Dr. Jakub Simek
> Heidelberg University Library
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Textual contents of book cover and <titlePage>

Jakub Simek
In reply to this post by Jakub Simek
Dear colleagues,

Many thanks for your valuable hints and remarks!

I am well aware of the library practice of ignoring the book cover because of its presumed irrelevance for the intellectual content of a work. The context of my interest in this matter however is not cataloguing but digital editions closely connected with scans of the artifacts. From a very practical point of view, if covers are being digitized, we want to offer their digital full text and as we are using TEI for text encoding, we have the need to encode the textual content of the cover somehow inside of <text> and certainly not just as metadata in the <teiHeader>.

The deeper question certainly is whether covers, dust jackets etc. can be considered parts of a "work" in the FRBR sense. Of course not directly because the "work" is something immaterial in the mind(s) of its creators(s). Even its "expression" ist immaterial because it can exist independently of a material carrier. But the "manifestation" (and its single "items") is an embodiment of the work's expression and as such a presentation of the work's ideas. It is not a priori impossible that a work's creator did not think of his work's presentation form and even such "details" as the cover. Later, the published result is not necessarily the product of the author's mind only but often of other collaborators (lector, editor, publisher, designer, typesetter ...) as well, but the TEI certainly has not been created for the exclusive encoding of  "pure textual works" as ideal emanations of the authors' minds. And for many research questions, not only because of new-fashioned "material turns", the full text documentation of things like the cover might be required, not only as "description" belonging to metadata, but as part of the "text".  

This said, there are really many books, magazines etc. which - as Paul pointed out - do not have a proper "title page" at all, while the cover adopts the function of a title page, carrying the information otherwise typical for title pages.  And beside of this, there are book parts - again agreeing with Paul - like half-titles, docket titles etc. that could be considered as worth encoding as constituents of the "text", not just descriptive metadata.

I am much inclined to follow Pauls straightforward practice of using <div>s inside of <front>, and further specifying them with some attribute labels like "cover". The possibility of nesting such <div>s if needed for further subdivisions (think of "dust jacket" > "front flap") makes it even more attractive for me.

But again then the practical problem arises that some typical "title page" elements are members of "model.divWrapper" (like <docAuthor>) and thus can be used inside of <div> while others like <docTitle> cannot.

It is of course easy to make e.g. <docTitle> a member of  "model.divWrapper" in a ODD customization, but my concern was to raise the question here if this is not something relevant for the TEI in general.

Best wishes,
Jakub