Chicago Full Note: Computer Programs and Webpage accessed

sebastian_berweck

Hello everybody,

thanks for this great program!

I have two questions about Chicago Full Note. I'm using Zotero 3.0.7 with Word Integration on a PC.

1) Computer Programs
My citations include platform and version numbers. However, this is what the bibliography looks like:
Cycling ’74, and Tim Place. Soundflower, 2012. http://code.google.com/p/soundflower/.

I'm missing something like (Version 1.6.2.1).

2) Website accessed
I asked this yesterday evening in a really old threat, but maybe those go unnoticed. Anyway, Chicago Manual of Style says you should include the date a website was changed and if you don't have that, note the access date.
The footnotes and the bibliography Zotero produces only show the "Date" fields. Since this information is rarely given, almost every website comes with a "n.d.", although the "Date accessed" information is stored in Zotero:
Paradiso, Joseph A. “Electronic Music Interfaces,” n.d. http://web.media.mit.edu/~joep/SpectrumWeb/SpectrumX.html.

What can I do about this? I would dare to change the cls, if it's rather easy, but then again, I probably shouldn't.

Thanks again
Sebastian

adamsmith

We read all threads (i.e. I saw your other one), I'll have a look at both of these. My suspicion would be that accessed dates really are optional as I say in the other thread (once you consult the full manual rather than the cliff-notes) but I'll double check.
I'll have to think about using the date accessed info for the full date when the latter doesn't exist - I currently don't see a reason not to do it, but maybe someone else does?

Computer program was likely never coded for the style - we also generally don't have great support for that item type, but version number should be possible.

sebastian_berweck

Thanks, adam smith, this looks promising. I would guess that my supervisors will be adamant in including a date. However, if a date is not necessary (and maybe I should drum with the manual on the table while making the point) then the "n.d." could probably go away? Because this does give the impression that it is needed but that the author was just too lazy.

Version number for computer programs would be great, else I'll have to do it by hand :-(

Thanks a lot and sorry for posting it twice
Sebastian

fbennett

@sebber: If you have time, could you take a look at the proofsheets here, and let me know what should be changed for Chicago, and perhaps suggest some better examples? The samples are just shots in the dark; I don't write about software, so I don't know what the referencing patterns and accepted conventions are, if any.

(The samples are for use with the experimental MLZ system and styles; I'm not sure whether the style would produce precisely the same results under official Zotero today, but getting these styles right will provide a reference when Zotero field assignments etc are revamped in the 3.5 development cycle)

sebastian_berweck

Hi Frank,

I don't have the 16th edition and as somebody else says, the CMoS in the 15th edition "does not explicitly cover the needs of technical writers creating documentation for computer hardware and software."

A commercial program gives this here (16th edition):
Title Version 5.0.1. Publisher, Place.
for a published program and

Title Version 5.0.1, Place.
for an unpublished program.

If you ask me, this does not look like CMoS. Another example I found on the net gives

Microsoft Word 2000 (Ver.9.6). Microsoft Corporation.

which looks better to me. I would not know where to look for a city in the many programs that "live on the net". In this case an URL would be needed, I guess.

What is important is the version number, that's the equivalent to different editions of a book.

That said: I'm no expert and if there's a computer buff around, please come to help. Or somebody with the 16th edition :-)

Thanks for your help
Sebastian

sebastian_berweck

I have been searching hi and low in CMoS 16th ed. but have found nothing on the matter.

sebastian_berweck

Hi all,

I just found that the access date was already discussed here: http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/20258/adding-accessed-date-to-chicago-style/

Thanks again
Sebastian

adamsmith

yeah, I had found that, too, in the meantime. So CMoS prefers publication/revision dates, but w/o those it calls for access dates.
If you can do it, please do - it'll be a bit until I can get to this I fear.

adamsmith

This is now done. The new version of (almost) all Chicago styles should show up on the repository within the next 30mins. Update by re-installing Any problems let me know.