Disambiguation and et. al. problems

Hi all,

sorry to address two problems on the same thread, but they happen with the same references and style.

My setup is Zotero 2.1rc2 and Zotero WinWord Integration 3.1b1.

Both problems started when I upgrade my style to CSL 1.0 through XSL transformation.

Here's the style I'm working with: https://gist.github.com/873714

Here's the erratic parts:

Bibliography:

ANTONACCI, M. J. et al. NCL: Uma Linguagem Declarativa para Especificação de Documentos Hipermídia na Web. Anais do VI Simpósio Brasileiro de Sistemas Multimídia e Hipermídia. Natal, 2000.

______. Improving the expressiveness of XML-based Hypermedia Authoring Languages. Proceedings of the Multimedia Modeling Conference. Nagano, Japão, 2000.

In-text references:

(ANTONACCI; MUCHALUAT-SAADE; RODRIGUES; SOARES, 2000a)

(ANTONACCI; MUCHALUAT-SAADE; RODRIGUES; SOARES, 2000b)

Problem 1) Bibliography disambiguation problem

Those two references should be disambiguated, but they are not. Both have 2000 as the year instead of 2000a and 2000b as happens with the in-text references.

What I have tried:

replaced on bibliography tag:

<text macro="issued" prefix=","/>

by:

<text macro="issued-year" prefix=", "/>

and later by:

<date-part name="year"/>

either attempts gave me the same results (shown above).

I guess the dates are on the right fields on Zotero.

One more information: the disambiguation letters appear on WebSite refereces like

Oracle. Java ME - the Most Ubiquitous Application Platform for Mobile Devices. . Acesso em: 6 de abril de 2010a. Disponivel em: <http://java.sun.com/javame/index.jsp>, 2010.

______. Applets. . Acesso em: 6 de abril de 2010b. Disponivel em: <http://java.sun.com/applets/>, 2010.




Problem 2) et al is not working properly on in-text references.

Notice that et al is correctly shown in bibliography (ANTONACCI, M. J. et al) but the in-text reference shows all authors (ANTONACCI; MUCHALUAT-SAADE; RODRIGUES; SOARES, 2000a).

The options et-al-min and et-al-use-first have the same value on the citation and bibliography tags: et-al-min="4" et-al-use-first="1".


Any help is welcomed.
Thanks in advance.
  • Thank you for this report; sorry that it has taken me some time to get to it, I've been on the road for the past two weeks. You have identified two bugs in citeproc-js, which have been fixed in a fresh release of the processor, which will find its way into a subsequent release of Zotero in due course.
    Those two references should be disambiguated, but they are not. Both have 2000 as the year instead of 2000a and 2000b as happens with the in-text references.
    This was a bug in the year-suffix code of the processor, triggered only when the year-suffix was not inserted explicitly (as is now possible in CSL 1.0) with an explicit <text variable="year-suffix"/> element. The legacy behavior should work correctly, though, and it's been fixed in the latest processor release.
    Notice that et al is correctly shown in bibliography (ANTONACCI, M. J. et al) but the in-text reference shows all authors (ANTONACCI; MUCHALUAT-SAADE; RODRIGUES; SOARES, 2000a).
    Here, the processor was behaving incorrectly, but the bug was that the extra names were not included in the bibliography (not the other way around). The additional names are added because the disambiguate-add-names attribute is set to "true" on the citation element of your style (in the CSL 1.0 version). Although the additional names do not succeed in disambiguating the references with this particular input, it is possible that the names could be useful to distinguish these citations from a reference authored by, say, ANTONACCI; MUCHALUAT-SAADE; RODRIGUES; SMITH, so they do need to be included. I have fixed the processor to correctly reflect extensions made to name lists in the bibliography, since the additional names are needed there to allow in-text citations to be matched unambiguously to particular references. To force use of the truncated form, you can remove the disambiguate-add-names attribute.

This is an old discussion that has not been active in a long time. Instead of commenting here, you should start a new discussion. If you think the content of this discussion is still relevant, you can link to it from your new discussion.