No, it's pretty much guaranteed that non-Unicode accommodations like that just aren't going to happen. In the long run, you are certainly better off using real Unicode. Publishers that are still using these fonts are slowly moving to Unicode, and if they don't understand why they should too, they should sit down and have a long talk with the folks at SIL.
Yes, your answers are what we need to know. I'm hoping that our resident legal scholar will tell me how to handle this, but he's, as far as I know, still discussing new item types with Islam Karimov in Tashkent. You haven't been forgotten.
Okay, sorry for the delay, and I hope this info is still useful. Music catalogers said that there are two unique items for musical scores, and they gave me MARC field numbers for them:
028 = publisher numbers and plate numbers
024 = ISMN # (like ISBN, but not around for as much time, so not all scores have them)
As I mentioned in previous posts, just the ability to have composer in the author field, along with lyricist/librettist, should be very useful.
Also, a unique "musical score" icon would be helpful for quick identification purposes as well.
For reported law cases in many jurisdictions, the "Court Division" (for example, Family Division, Civil Division, etc.) is a necessary element. Not sure how it fits into Bibo, but we do need a field for this. Thread here:
@fbennett: Can you look at Philippe's comment above and make the appropriate suggestions in the issue tracker based on these legal citation requirements?
I am currently working on a style that conforms with the Cambridge University Art History style, as modified by the University of Melbourne.
I'm glad to see there is talk of adding new Art History related items to the next release.
I think there are two Art History related types missing (required for the Cambridge/Melbourne citation system).
(1) Exhibition Catalogue:
- Site(s) of the exhibition (city/cities)
- Exhibition title
- Principal sites of the exhibition (gallery name(s) in the city/cities)
- Place of catalogue publication
- Publisher
- Year of publication
This is similar to a book. The crucial difference is that the author field is replaced with the institution where the museum was held, when there is no identifiable author for the catalogue. As formatting is changed in the bibliography, the style requires a way to identify a book separately from a catalogue.
The multi-volume works issue is about to become significantly painful for me, with the large number of single-authored, multi-volume works carried by Japanese legal publishers.
Looking at the Zotero schema, I don't see any obvious reason why publicationTitle couldn't be added to the Book and Book Section types, to slot into the UI above "Volume" as "Volume Title". If that is acceptable, and could be included in the next round of schema revisions, it would be a great boost.
(Edit: Hmm. It's the variety of possibilities that make these things hard to resolve, isn't it. An alternative approach would be to move forward with the recognition of subtitle splits in the title field, as discussed here. I would kind of prefer that, actually, since it would kill several birds with one stone, and wouldn't touch the schema.)
I would also like to request two field additions to the Art Work (graphic) style:
1. Place - Location/Gallery where the work is displayed (or 'Private Collection'); this is different to the Archive related fields available.
2. Source/Reference - It is often necessary to provide a cross-reference to a book, catalogue or web site where a graphic of the art work was sourced from. This source is a separate Zotero entry, though there still needs to be a way to cross-reference this item for the Bibliography. Right now I am using the 'Notes' fields, but a more appropriate field where I could store something like "Greenberg 1965" would be helpful.
No, links between items will be required for some legal citation as well, so it's on the roadmap, but isn't yet possible.
Can you provide details on the citations needed, on their style, etc.? This won't happen in the short term, but it's good to know precisely what will be needed.
Artwork requires a simple reference:
1. Author (or Institution or Location)
2. Year
3. Locator (page number or item number or catalogue reference number)
Essentially, the Artwork source reference needs to be the same as a Book, Museum Catalogue, Exhibition Catalogue, Web Page, etc.
Regarding your final question, such disambiguation is provided in many styles; it's pretty standard. It's defined in the style specification here: http://citationstyles.org/downloads/specification.html#disambiguation The behavior you're describing is specifically "disambiguate-add-year-suffix". If you need to devise a style that works in this way or find an existing one, open a new thread. This is unrelated to creating and revising the fields and item types in Zotero.
I hope it's no too late for a request. I work in an environment where some infomation is "Protectively Marked" (aka Classified) for National Security reasons. Typical protective markings in the UK are Restricted, Confidential and Secret.
It would be very useful to have a field to store the "Protective Marking" of a document. This would primarily be applicable to Reports, but there are also classified journals, thesis and conference proceeedings. The contents of the "Protective marking" field would need to be available for use in citation styles.
"Protective Marking" is the official UK terminology. In the US I think this would be called "Classification". However, I think "Protective marking" is a more specific term in this context.
Can you provide examples of citations using "Protective Marking"? In light of the nature of the term, it's fine to change the contents and whatnot, but we need to get a feel for how this data is included in citations and how it is formatted. Please post examples, and hopefully related guidance from a style guide, so we can do this right.
In terms of how "Protective Marking" is typically used in citations. The only format guidance I have is not prescriptive. Typically, one would use a numeric system, numbered in the order of citation. Citations would appear in the text as [1] and the reference list would look like:
1. Smith, J and Jones, R, How many civil servants does it take to change a lightbulb, DSTL/PUB/16543/246, 1993, UK SECRET.
Currently my team uses Reference Manager. We store the "Protective Marking" in User Defined field 1. I created the citation style we use by taking a prexisting style and simply adding the capitalised protective marking at the end (it it was present in the record).
that seems obscure enough for me to justify working with the extra field - it is - essentially - like a note on the item and thus extra seems to fit pretty well (extra can be called from csl)
I agree that "Protective Marking" is probably a niche requirement, and I was planning to use the "extra" field as a workaround. I don't know enough about the architecture of Zotero to know what's practical, but I think its preferable to get the underlying data model right. My preferred approach would be to include even the most obscure fields in the data model, but allow the user to select which fields are displayed in the user interface.
A problem with multiplying data fields is that they need to be mapped to reasonable and portable equivalents in Citation Style Language, and a number of export formats (MARC, MODS, BIBO, and more).
It seems that "Protective Marking" status is fluid. A document's status at the time it was released may have been relaxed a level or two by the time it is cited. If so, which level should be a part of the citation -- the original classification or the current one?
Also, (while this is more a user question than a Zotero issue) could a document ever cite a report that is at a more restricted level than the status of the citing document?
I have seen redacted documents that were at one level of protection and later less-redacted versions that were at a more relaxed protection level. It seems to me that protection level is close to the EDITION field. Perhaps, in use, the security status of the cited document should simply be appended to the report title:
1. Smith, J and Jones, R, How many civil servants does it take to change a lightbulb [security status: UK SECRET], DSTL/PUB/16543/246, 1993.
2. Smith, J and Jones, R, How many civil servants does it take to change a lightbulb [security status: UK RESTRICTED], DSTL/PUB/12345/678b, 1995.
I agree that the protecive marking of a document can change over time. I would take the view that the point of including the information in a citation is to help the reader understand limitations on the availability of the document. All a writer can really do is provide the "best" i.e. most up-to-date information available.
As to whether a document could ever cite a report that is at a more restricted level than the status of the citing document? Short answer to this one is "yes".
Finally, the problem with incluing the protective marking of a document in it's title, is that document titles sometimes have protective markings in their own right, as do abstracts. So there needs to be a way of distinguishing the protective marking of the title of the document from the protective marking of the document itself.
It's pretty clear that Zotero is not going to add support for field-level marking of sensitivity. Maybe there's a market for such work (and enforcing it, I suppose), but I wouldn't expect that functionality to be added to Zotero.
A general marking of sensitivity could be put in "Extra", as adamsmith noted, or perhaps in the "Rights" field, but I don't think that the latter field is currently available from styles.
As for the discussion of best practices for maintaining this information, I suggest creating a new thread for that, so that this thread can stay a little more focused on concrete schema change proposals.
It'd be more complicated to implement, but Call Number and Archive Location (and I think Repository?) should probably be many-to-one to items. Maybe there's not enough need for that to justify the extra work, though.
Upgrade Storage
028 = publisher numbers and plate numbers
024 = ISMN # (like ISBN, but not around for as much time, so not all scores have them)
As I mentioned in previous posts, just the ability to have composer in the author field, along with lyricist/librettist, should be very useful.
Also, a unique "musical score" icon would be helpful for quick identification purposes as well.
Thanks, and let me know if I can clarify further!
http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/16476/new-field-for-cases-court-division/
I'm glad to see there is talk of adding new Art History related items to the next release.
I think there are two Art History related types missing (required for the Cambridge/Melbourne citation system).
(1) Exhibition Catalogue:
- Site(s) of the exhibition (city/cities)
- Exhibition title
- Principal sites of the exhibition (gallery name(s) in the city/cities)
- Place of catalogue publication
- Publisher
- Year of publication
(per http://www.lib.unimelb.edu.au/cite/ahcca/ahcca_exhibt.html)
(2) Museum Catalogue
This is similar to a book. The crucial difference is that the author field is replaced with the institution where the museum was held, when there is no identifiable author for the catalogue. As formatting is changed in the bibliography, the style requires a way to identify a book separately from a catalogue.
(per http://www.lib.unimelb.edu.au/cite/ahcca/ahcca_museumt.html)
Thanks and looking forward to the next release!
Looking at the Zotero schema, I don't see any obvious reason why publicationTitle couldn't be added to the Book and Book Section types, to slot into the UI above "Volume" as "Volume Title". If that is acceptable, and could be included in the next round of schema revisions, it would be a great boost.
(Edit: Hmm. It's the variety of possibilities that make these things hard to resolve, isn't it. An alternative approach would be to move forward with the recognition of subtitle splits in the title field, as discussed here. I would kind of prefer that, actually, since it would kill several birds with one stone, and wouldn't touch the schema.)
1. Place - Location/Gallery where the work is displayed (or 'Private Collection'); this is different to the Archive related fields available.
2. Source/Reference - It is often necessary to provide a cross-reference to a book, catalogue or web site where a graphic of the art work was sourced from. This source is a separate Zotero entry, though there still needs to be a way to cross-reference this item for the Bibliography. Right now I am using the 'Notes' fields, but a more appropriate field where I could store something like "Greenberg 1965" would be helpful.
Thanks, James
Can you provide details on the citations needed, on their style, etc.? This won't happen in the short term, but it's good to know precisely what will be needed.
1. Author (or Institution or Location)
2. Year
3. Locator (page number or item number or catalogue reference number)
Essentially, the Artwork source reference needs to be the same as a Book, Museum Catalogue, Exhibition Catalogue, Web Page, etc.
Thanks.
The behavior you're describing is specifically "disambiguate-add-year-suffix". If you need to devise a style that works in this way or find an existing one, open a new thread. This is unrelated to creating and revising the fields and item types in Zotero.
It would be very useful to have a field to store the "Protective Marking" of a document. This would primarily be applicable to Reports, but there are also classified journals, thesis and conference proceeedings. The contents of the "Protective marking" field would need to be available for use in citation styles.
"Protective Marking" is the official UK terminology. In the US I think this would be called "Classification". However, I think "Protective marking" is a more specific term in this context.
1. Smith, J and Jones, R, How many civil servants does it take to change a lightbulb, DSTL/PUB/16543/246, 1993, UK SECRET.
Currently my team uses Reference Manager. We store the "Protective Marking" in User Defined field 1. I created the citation style we use by taking a prexisting style and simply adding the capitalised protective marking at the end (it it was present in the record).
Also, (while this is more a user question than a Zotero issue) could a document ever cite a report that is at a more restricted level than the status of the citing document?
I have seen redacted documents that were at one level of protection and later less-redacted versions that were at a more relaxed protection level. It seems to me that protection level is close to the EDITION field. Perhaps, in use, the security status of the cited document should simply be appended to the report title:
1. Smith, J and Jones, R, How many civil servants does it take to change a lightbulb [security status: UK SECRET], DSTL/PUB/16543/246, 1993.
2. Smith, J and Jones, R, How many civil servants does it take to change a lightbulb [security status: UK RESTRICTED], DSTL/PUB/12345/678b, 1995.
As to whether a document could ever cite a report that is at a more restricted level than the status of the citing document? Short answer to this one is "yes".
Finally, the problem with incluing the protective marking of a document in it's title, is that document titles sometimes have protective markings in their own right, as do abstracts. So there needs to be a way of distinguishing the protective marking of the title of the document from the protective marking of the document itself.
A general marking of sensitivity could be put in "Extra", as adamsmith noted, or perhaps in the "Rights" field, but I don't think that the latter field is currently available from styles.
As for the discussion of best practices for maintaining this information, I suggest creating a new thread for that, so that this thread can stay a little more focused on concrete schema change proposals.