Upgrade StorageHandling legislation/statutes outside the US
Hi there,
In the Australian legal style, we usually put in the jurisdiction which passed the statute in the citation. For example:
s1 Statute of Monopolies 1623 (UK)
I can't really see a field which would be suitable for this purpose. I don't really want to put it in the Author field, as in a bibliography, it should be sorted by Act name (as per the Case type). Would it be possible to add a Jurisdiction field to the Statute type, or is there another (preferred) way to handle jurisdictions?
In the Australian legal style, we usually put in the jurisdiction which passed the statute in the citation. For example:
s1 Statute of Monopolies 1623 (UK)
I can't really see a field which would be suitable for this purpose. I don't really want to put it in the Author field, as in a bibliography, it should be sorted by Act name (as per the Case type). Would it be possible to add a Jurisdiction field to the Statute type, or is there another (preferred) way to handle jurisdictions?
Bad news: legal support is still a work in progress.
Good news: since it's a work in progress, there's room for "domain experts" like you to help.
I think Zotero probably needs to add a jurisdiction field, and that you've found a bug or two in the CSL handling.
You might also look at the RDF ontology I mentioned for comments. We have no specific "jurisdiction" property, but I'm assuming we can rely on the dcterms:coverage property.
But I'm happy to be more involved, even though I'm more at home with Python than Javascript & XPCOM. But I'm happy to dive in and start looking for the source of the problems I've found - my only real concern is about how to run a development version of the extension as well as the one I need for my thesis on the same computer. Is that possible?
I've had a look at the RDF ontology as you suggested. It certainly seems to have everything covered. I think you're right about using the dcterms:coverage property rather than adding an extra field.
We won't need a patch to add a "jurisdiction" field, however—just a consensus that it's needed.
What's the code you're using that's not matching on "bill"? <if type="bill"> works fine for me in 1.0.7.
Mea culpa on the matching problem - I was trying to match type="legal_case bill" without a match="any" attribute.
But I'd really love your input on this one:
http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/4831/bug-with-csl-matchnone-handling/#Item_1
http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/800/australasian-legal-information-institute/#Item_0
Alternatively, including the Legislative Body field from the Bill type would serve the same purpose. And while I'm at it, I'd like to second the requests for a Treaty type, as these have their own unique formatting, like this:
{Treaty Title}, opened for signature {Day Signed} {Month Signed} {Year Signed}, {Signatories}, {Treaty Series} {Citation} (entered into force {Day In Force} {Month In Force} {Year In Force}) (‘{Short Title}’)
I fear that this may be a request too far, and I don't want to make a mess of the UI, but it seems to me that these parameters will be needed to get a firm fix on how individual citations with similar content should be formatted. I've jotted down some further ruminations over on the bibio dev list.