Upgrade StorageChanges to fields and item types for Zotero 5.1
[edited: These changes will be in Zotero 5.1; see the announcement]
The upcoming release of Zotero 2.1 final is likely to include several (minor) additions and changes to the current set of Zotero item types (e.g. "Book Section") and fields (e.g. "Book Title"). These changes require careful consideration, since they not only affect how bibliographic data is imported, exported and synced, but also how this data can be formatted with Citation Style Language (CSL) styles.
Several members of the Zotero and CSL communities have written up a preliminary list of changes, available at https://github.com/ajlyon/zotero-bits/wiki/Zotero-types-whiteboard. At this point, we would like to call for feedback from Zotero developers and users. Ideally, in the next few weeks, we would like to expand and refine this list so we end up with a collection of well-documented requests that increase the usability of Zotero while minimizing the disruption for existing users.
In considering changes to item types and fields, it is important to remember that item types in Zotero are best understood as a set of fields and a set of ways they tend to be styled. That means that the best argument for new fields or types is that a certain type of data or citation is presently impossible to represent in Zotero. In addition, it is important to note that CSL has its own set of fields (called CSL variables) and item types, and that a mapping is used to make Zotero data accessible to CSL styles. Finally, a small update to CSL 1.0 might be released along Zotero 2.1, which would allow for the addition of new CSL variables.
Comments and contributions can be posted in this thread or in the relevant existing forum threads that discuss changes to item types. You can also request direct access to the wiki on GitHub (see the wiki for details).
[edited for clarity per Rintze's suggestions]
The upcoming release of Zotero 2.1 final is likely to include several (minor) additions and changes to the current set of Zotero item types (e.g. "Book Section") and fields (e.g. "Book Title"). These changes require careful consideration, since they not only affect how bibliographic data is imported, exported and synced, but also how this data can be formatted with Citation Style Language (CSL) styles.
Several members of the Zotero and CSL communities have written up a preliminary list of changes, available at https://github.com/ajlyon/zotero-bits/wiki/Zotero-types-whiteboard. At this point, we would like to call for feedback from Zotero developers and users. Ideally, in the next few weeks, we would like to expand and refine this list so we end up with a collection of well-documented requests that increase the usability of Zotero while minimizing the disruption for existing users.
In considering changes to item types and fields, it is important to remember that item types in Zotero are best understood as a set of fields and a set of ways they tend to be styled. That means that the best argument for new fields or types is that a certain type of data or citation is presently impossible to represent in Zotero. In addition, it is important to note that CSL has its own set of fields (called CSL variables) and item types, and that a mapping is used to make Zotero data accessible to CSL styles. Finally, a small update to CSL 1.0 might be released along Zotero 2.1, which would allow for the addition of new CSL variables.
Comments and contributions can be posted in this thread or in the relevant existing forum threads that discuss changes to item types. You can also request direct access to the wiki on GitHub (see the wiki for details).
[edited for clarity per Rintze's suggestions]
- I like the dataset type
- What is the difference between 'book author' and 'editor' for book sections?
Maybe more later...
Generally, I think that it's more important to make two changes (I know, this is kind of unrelated):
- possibility to define which fields are shown by default whereas the others are only visible after pressing an extend button (the list is to long and it would be nice to have a better overview without the rarely used fields auch as 'Rights' or 'Language')
- quicker way to copy paste list of authors into item. That always takes a long time when I have to do that (for example for book sections)
And to clarify - the reason this needs to be discussed with community involvement is that changes to the overall data model are only going to happen very, very rarely and can't really be reverted once they're implemented so we need to get this right. Other features (e.g. the ones requested by Greg) can just be added whenever, because they don't affect the underlying data structure.
I am not sure how the citation required for publications with this dataset should work because sometimes these are books, sometimes, articles. It would be nice to have a dataset type though and when you cite this the correct citation is used.
Perhaps you can look at style guides and author guides and compile the rules for datasets in your field's leading journals?
Edit: Rintze has started work on fleshing out the dataset type proposal: https://github.com/ajlyon/zotero-bits/wiki/DatasetType
That page also has links to some style guides and previous discussion. Consider what else might be needed to make the type useful.
As per ajlyon's post above: The question is - can you currently cite a play correctly in your preferred citation styles? If yes, we don't need a new item type. If not, why not?
Also, as a matter of "certain type of data," as I tell my students constantly, plays are not books or novels, so I think it would make sense to deferentiate them with a separate item type as a matter of clarity. That might be me just being nit picky, but I think that kind of clarity is important. However, I also understand that may open the floodgates for numerous other things too.
The purpose of types in Zotero is not to distinguish between different items analytically, unless that's relevant for citation purposes.
You can use tags etc. for that purpose.
1. The hdl and UNF handlers - so fart those aren't very common - they're a project of Gary King out of Harvard that has, so far, not really caught up - not even in PoliSci, which is Gary's main discipline. In any case - hdl's are a form of URL and should go in that field - I'd add the UNF - so this doesn't really require an item type
2. Separate info for producer and distributor - APSA requires this for ICPSR (the largest data repository for the social sciences) - and I'd assume that's also the case for sociology I have no thoughts on this - but this might require a separate field.
3. Data Sets are given a different status - in some styles they are treated like monographs with the title in italics (e.g. APA). In some styles (such as the one given on http://thedata.org/citation/standard ) they are treated as articles and put in quotation marks. In the third set of styles (such as the APSA style) they are treated as neither and given in normal font without quotation marks, although monographs are in italics and articles in quotation marks otherwise.
At least in the disciplines I know - PoliSci, Sociology, and Economics - I have never seen any of the other requested information on the various data set threads (such as sampling group etc.) in any citation.
Imho so far this doesn't look like a separate data set type is needed. It would be good to hear from some other disciplines, though - I'm thinking geography, psych, maybe some of the statistically oriented life-sciences like epidemiology etc.
I would like to see a "type" variable included in book. That would help e.g. for styles that want things like "ebook" "digital image" or even "kindle book" listed. I'll dig up the links when I get the chance - erazlogo once said she didn't like the idea, so I wanted to open that for discussion rather than just adding it to the list on github
Of course, it's obvious to any theater scholar that there isn't a single underlying Hamlet-- we can only talk about print, stage, screen manifestations. This is something that will some day be addressed by the long-discussed hierarchical item model, but it's a hard problem theoretically and practically.
For now, we have a window of opportunity to make changes to the specific fields and types at our disposal -- to see if plays need something Zotero can't do, just explain what data you need to keep on plays and what citations look like.
We'll try to figure out whether the current model can handle it and propose changes if it can't. The current system is more flexible than it looks.
This is more or less what I am trying to get at here. Thanks!
Would it make sense to add a "Citation Label" field to all item types, or would this clutter the UI too much?
As we do so, we still need clarification on:
* Artwork. The whiteboard has no concrete proposals on what can or should be changed with that type. Without some clarification and justification, it's not going to happen for 2.1.
* Music Score. Older discussions acknowledges the need, but we have no details on necessary fields.
* Exhibition Catalogue
* Series Titles and Series Text. These fields are unclear to begin with-- the whiteboard includes a proposal to repurpose one as "section"; see the whiteboard.
Between these changes, standalone, and multilingual, the 2.1 release of Zotero is going to be a very exciting one.