Changes to fields and item types for Zotero 5.1

  • It would be useful for a primary source edited in a PhD dissertation. And if it isn't for most people, they simply won't use it, and it won't bother them as it would be in a scrolling menu. As for now it's not possible to say something like "this source which author is X was edited by Y in his PdD dissertation Z" without recuring to the "Extra" field.
  • For something that niche (I can't think of any citation style guide that would require that—they would just cite the thesis itself), it isn't worth the clutter and potential confusion for most users. You can personally add these type of data to your library and have them appear in citations by adding additional CSL variables to the Extra field like this:
    Translator: Last || First
  • I don't see why it would be confusing, because people won't open the scrolling menu of the "Author" field unless they need it...
  • @adamsmith
    I see a lot of discussion about bringing DOI fields to all types in Zotero, which is generally agreed to be a very needed thing. I am wondering about some other digital ID schemas and if they, or how they will be supported in Zotero... Two types that I have been encountering recently are urn: [1] and ark: [2], Historically, I have just treated handels [6] as URLs. I see that there is a bit of discussion around the forums [3,4] about broadening the scope of the ID field, but this is a bit different, and yet similar. I also see some discussion on github [5], but I don't see anything definitive or clearly on the road map. ([1b], and [2b] are from my own citations in my current writing project.)
  • I think generally [3] is the right discussion to look at and I don't think there's been much movement beyond this, certainly not a roadmap.

    Personally I'm pragmatic about this -- DOIs are required metadata for countless citation styles, so they're a must and a priority.

    PM(C)IDs are already part of CSL, so they're low-hanging fruit and also in quite high demand.

    Everything else is, at least to me, in the "would be good to have" category but may well not end up being part of an initial update, especially since there's no way we'll be even close with CSL to add support for it (and then people have all this nicely structured data that they can't cite which is going to cause a lot of grief).
  • I have two requests for items. I'm not sure if this is the place to put them. If it isn't could I be directed towards the area. In the field of musicology, Zotero is being used more and more. There is one item that doesn't really fit anything. Is there a way to add a "live performance" of like a symphony orchestra or rock concert?
  • edited February 20, 2019
    A live performance item type is planned. For now, “Presentation” will be the closest.
  • Although it looks like I am two years late in joining this discussion, I would be very interested in reaching @adamsmith for some questions regarding references for anthologies. I have started a conversation on this matter elsewhere; but, I wanted to tie into something about which @adamsmith has already been involved in the hope that it will help me to contact him. Thank you.
  • (I've responded in your original thread; I read almost every thread & tagging me with @ will definitely get my attention)
  • Hello all, in the discussion of new field type, can I also get this included in the discussion: It probably already is, but just making sure.

    Also, is there a more summary of the proposals somewhere? 13 pages is getting hard to read.

    Finally, is there a reason that 'Presentation' doesn't have a 'Loc. in Archive'? I would generally vote for making fields as uniform across types as possible. Or even have a user preference that is 'show non-sentical fields' (or similar) that simply shows all fields for all types :)
  • Hi,

    I agree with @bjohas. I believe that Zotero, in a broad sense, is about managing and providing easy access to the overwhelming information and data around us. At least, there should be a way to be more organized in this forum.

  • I like the dataset type, but what is the difference between 'book author' and 'editor' for book sections?
  • The “book author” is the _author_ (principal writer) of the book, whereas the editor is the person editing the text or coordinating the book. Book Author might be used if the Book Section were, for example, an introduction to a book written by one other author, or a translated chapter in a book or anthology of a person’s works.
  • I agree that Format should be added to Book/Book Section -- but I worry that we might need to add it to even more formats. I went ahead and added it to the whiteboard.
  • Sorry - I haven't followed this thread, but has anybody raised the issue of multilinguality here? I didn't see it on the whiteboard, which is why I'm mentioning it here. It's absence in even citation styles is becoming less and less defensible. So for what it's worth - at LEAST a translated (and preferably also a transliterated) title and publication field would be more than welcome.
  • I would guess that the initial set of updates on fields will be simple, low-hanging fruit, i.e. definitely not multi-linguality. (Its absence is obviously defensible by a simple cost/benefit calculation; no need to go hyperbolic on this. Remember that many Zotero features that have been planned since 2006 haven't been implemented yet. Also, of course, Juris-m does exists for people/groups for whom this is a priority)

    We'll definitely not put any related variables in the next CSL release (though original-title and original-author, which could be used for this, already exist), but it's also unclear to what degree CSL even has to play a role here: the main chunk of the implementation of this in juris-m, e.g., doesn't happen through the citation style but through Zotero-wide options and given the many possible permutations of what to include where and how, that always seemed like the right choice to me.
  • edited April 30, 2019
    I don't really mean to go 'hyperbolic' on this. I realize few people currently want/need this. My point just is that with a) the (not just quantitative any more, but increasingly also qualitative) explosion of non-Anglo-Saxon-based scientific publications, and b) the exponential improvements in automated translation - the all-too-facile excuse of "I wasn't able to include non-English academic articles in my literature review" is just not going to fly anymore. Whether we like it or not (and I personally both do and don't), the days of Anglo-Saxon academic dominance ARE starting to wane. And the ostrich attitude that the 'bibliographic' community still exhibits really does seem counterproductive to me.
    As to Zotero and CSL - since only you guys have SOME inkling of the future 'roadmaps' of these things (where can we see - let alone provide feedback on - those "Zotero features that have been planned since 2006 [but] haven't been implemented yet"?), it is hard for us to 'dose' our suggestions on these issues...
    I understood that the parting of ways between the 'main' Zotero trunk and Frank's MLZ/Juris-M trunk was based on precisely this limitation to add new fields. It seems to me that with 5.1, that limitation is being lifted now. So it's not THAT unreasonable (it seems to me) to ask whether multilinguality could be included as well - now or at some later point.
  • It's completely reasonable to ask (that's why I answered); it's not reasonable to suggest that everyone who doesn't share your priorities is clueless (and that's what "indefensible" implies).

    For CSL -- there is virtually no private communication going on in the project. Everything happens on the discourse forum and/or github. The current thinking on the next minor release is the 1.2 milestone +/- some details: (just so people aren't confused -- this is distinct from Zotero: a lot of things requested in this thread are already possible in CSL). There are no specific plans for a 2.0 release, which is at least a year, realistically more like 2+ years, out.
  • Why the ISBN is removed from Thesis format? Some doctoral thesis have ISBN and are printed and distributed
  • @danieltomasz
    Than it's a book... don't you think?

    Hello all of you! I really miss some item type and until yet I didn't find a good way to replace it and I didn't find any conversation about this neither. I hope this is the good place to do it.

    I want to register a special volume of a journal, with editors and title of the volume but still the reference to the journal edited like a journal paper and not like a book. If you have any suggestion of the item type I should use, it would help a lot!

    Example of a paper in such a special volume. As you can say it mixes properties of book (without location and edition) and a journal (with Title of the volume AND Name of the journal and also possibility of abbreviation for it) :

    Méniel Patrice, Poplin François, « Relation de l’homme et des animaux dans leur gisement », in Brunaux Jean Louis, Méniel Patrice, Poplin François (dir.), Gournay : Les fouilles sur le sanctuaire et l’oppidum (1975-1984), Revue archéologique de Picardie (RAP), 4, 1985, p. 165‑166.
  • @danieltomasz Missing ISBN for thesis is a historical oversight. It will likely be added during the field updates. For now, you can store these in Extra like this:
    ISBN: 978-0-1234-56789
  • @loutine Can you post your question to a new thread and I can help you make something work. What style are you using?
Sign In or Register to comment.