CSL 1.0 Types vs. Zotero itemTypes: missing document etc.

ChristianR

I have opened a new thread here. See the thread where I was coming to the topic and complaining that Zotero 2.1 and CSL 1.0 types and Metadata Field Index in my opinion is not very lucky (reasons are history/compatibility): http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/19210?page=1#Item_1

I hope I have now an acceptable solution. My full file is still in alpha/beta status but after some more heavy testing and fine tuning maybe ready for rc-status. For interested people it is available here for 1 month: http://pastebin.com/hpSqbha2

Is there a way to output a text term if the Zotero 2.1 itemType = document (Dokument) is filled, as there is no field in CSL 1.0? I really have much of them (old documents, contracts, agreements, receipts, mortgages, etc.). Is it possible that the other CSL-using reference management products don't use this type?

See here a code example for the type extraction I use:
<macro name="item-type">
<group prefix="[" suffix="]">
<choose>
<if variable="publisher" match="none"><choose>
<if type="article-journal" match="any">
<text value="Zeitschriftenartikel"/>
</if>
<else-if type="article-magazine" match="any">
<text value="Magazin-Artikel"/>
</else-if>
...
</choose>
</if>
</choose>
</group>
</macro>

adamsmith

I don't know the future of "document", but the way it was conceptualized is as a fallback category - if something is nothing else, then it's a document.
It's not a great item type to cite for that reason and I try to avoid using it.
Theoretically you could list all other item type and match="none" to get a document.
Also, if you put up your files on gist.github.com they don't get taken down after a month.

ChristianR

Thanks. I will go on ghisthub when my file is in clear beta/rc phase. For example now I'm in the process of validation.
About "document": I understand now the past of this item-type. But I'm still troubled how to categorize old deeds (like medieval Parchment scripts etc.): I think to use just the document-type as a fallback category is not the way I like to go. And I guess other history-oriented researchers think similiar about their source-storing. For now I think the only way is to use the "extra = note"-field.

adamsmith

I would find something that approximates what you need - pretty much anything you could do with "Document" you can do with "Manuscript" - don't get hung up on the labels.

bdarcus

And FWIW, from my own perspective, a manuscript is just an unpublished document.

erazlogo

And FWIW, from my own perspective, a manuscript is just an unpublished document.

Right. "Manuscript" should work for pretty much any odd unpublished source you could find in historical archives.

ChristianR

ok, you have convinced me to choose manuscript as favorite, maybe also for documents written by typewriter.