Upgrade StorageMapping Evidence Explained Citations to Existing Zotero Types
I've searched through the forums for ideas on how to use Zotero to deal with the citation formats in Elizabeth Shown Mills' Evidence Explained. There's much discussion about creating a new style and creating new types. If we take it as a given that Chicago Manual of Style will suffice for style and new types are not possible, does anyone have experience to relate on how they used the existing types, such as Report and Manuscript, to capture genealogical citations?
For instance, I have many source list entries of census records from Ancestry.com. Has anyone mapped the recommended data from EE to a type in Zotero, and if so, would you please share how you did it?
For instance, I have many source list entries of census records from Ancestry.com. Has anyone mapped the recommended data from EE to a type in Zotero, and if so, would you please share how you did it?
Otherwise, I'd be happy to help along: if you provide some sample citations for different census records you have, we can figure out together how to input them into Zotero, I know both the field mapping & Chicago style very well.
Frank has done something like that very rigorously for legal citations for his MLZ version of Zotero - there is no reason not to do that for items common in genealogy itself.
http://citationstylist.org/proofsheets/
If you want to go that route (and I think that'd be cool), ideally you'd find some collaborators interested in this, as it's an insane amount of work and I'm not going to be an active participant beyond helping out if you need technical advice.
(New fields/item types are also not completely out of the questions in the medium run if they're really needed & now would be a good time to find that out - what's not going to happen is a proliferation of item types to match the different types mentioned in EE)
-------------------
From page 240 of Evidence Explained:
QuickCheck Model - Digital Images - Online Commercial Site
Place and year as lead elements in Source List
-------------------
Source List Entry
Iowa, Marion County. 1850 U.S. census, population schedule. Digital images. Ancestry.com. http://www.ancestry.com: 2007.
Jurisdiction: Iowa, Marion County
Census ID (generic): 1850 U.S. census
Schedule: population schedule
Item type or format: Digital images
Website title: Ancestry.com
URL (digital location): http://www.ancestry.com
Year: 2007
--------------------
First (full) Reference Note
1. 1850 U.S. census, Marion County, Iowa, population schedule, Lake Prairie, p. 290 (stamped), dwelling 151, family 156, Virgil W. and Wyatt B. Earp; digital image, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com: accessed 16 January 2006); citing NARA microfilm publication M432, roll 187.
Census ID: 1850 U.S. census
Jurisdiction: Marion County, Iowa
Schedule: population schedule
Civil division: Lake Prairie
Page ID: p. 290 (stamped)
Household ID: dwelling 151, family 156
Person(s) of interest: Virgil W. and Wyatt B. Earp
Item type or format: Digital images
Website title: Ancestry.com
URL (digital location): http://www.ancestry.com
URL date: accessed 16 January 2006
Credit line (source of this source): citing NARA microfilm publication M432, roll 187
--------------------
Subsequent (short) Note
11. 1850 U.S. census, Marion Co., Iowa, pop. sch., p. 290 (stamped), dwell. 151, fam. 156, Virgil W. and Wyatt B. Earp
Census ID: 1850 U.S. census
Jurisdiction: Marion Co., Iowa
Schedule: pop. sch.
Page ID: p. 290 (stamped)
Household ID: dwell. 151, fam. 156
Person(s) of interest: Virgil W. and Wyatt B. Earp
--------------------
Just eyeballing this style, some data will map easily. The household data, however, will probably have to be treated like page numbering in the actual citation. The abbreviations in the subsequent note are also problematic, though probably expendable.
The Chicago summary (http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html) has no brackets. The order of the 'accessed' item changes between CMS 15th and 16th edition (http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/about16_rules.html). Most of the summaries of CMS have no brackets. One of the few places I can find that mentions brackets is: (http://library.cn.edu/wacn/pdfs/Chicago_overview.pdf), which is for the 15th edition. However, the summary of changes does not mention this as a change for the 16th edition.
Where do the brackets for URL in EE come from?
ESM seems to claim that her work is derived from CMoS (not Turabian) (though I can't find a reference just now).
>EE has the URL in brackets, and the 'accessed' item after the URL. The Chicago summary http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html) has no brackets. The order of the 'accessed' item changes between CMS 15th and 16th edition. Where do the brackets for URL in EE come from?
----------
Kulath, I have just now seen your question. Thanks for asking it. FYI, EvidenceExplained.com also has query forums where questions about citation, evidence analysis, or record usage can be asked directly for much quicker answers.
Short answer to your question
EE’s format for citing material published online follows the traditional format for citing material published in print. This is one of the core requests made by both programmers and researchers while EE was under development.
Before I give you the long answer, I should clarify one point: EE uses parentheses for the function that you question — not brackets. Among historical researchers, expository writers, and editors, parentheses and brackets have quite different functions.
Long Answer: A Comparison of Templates
A basic format for citing a published source would be “Basic Book” (aka monograph: a book with a single focus and the same author for all its content). Using this, let’s compare the traditional reference-note format (whether EE, CMOS, Turabian, or whatever) to EE's reference-note format for a simple website publication:
Traditional book citation
Author/Content Creator, Title of Book (Publication place: *Date), page/figure/whatever.
EE website citation
Author/Content Creator, Title of Website (Publication place/URL : Date), page/figure/whatever.
*Most style guides give us the option here of citing (a) Date; or (b) Publisher, Date. EE's website option allows citing whatever date is appropriate: date of access, publication, or update. A field for publisher is rarely necessary when citing a website.
To extend this analogy, let’s compare the traditional way of citing a collected work (aka anthology, etc., in which each essay or chapter has a different author but the whole has one editor or editorial team) to a website that has many separate offerings by different creators under different titles:
Traditional citation to “collected work”
Author of Essay, “Title of Essay,” in Title of Collected Work, Name of Editor or Editors (Place of Publication: date), page/figure/whatever.
Example:
Elizabeth Shown Mills, “Marie Thérèse Coincoin (1742–1816): Cane River Slave, Slave Owner, and Paradox,” in Janet Allured and Judith F. Gentry, Louisiana Women: Their Lives and Their Times (Athens, Ga.: University of Georgia Press, 2009), 10–29.
EE citation to an online counterpart
Author/Creator of Article or Database, “Title of Article or Database,” at Name of Website Creator, Title of Website (Publication place/URL : Date), specific item cited.
Example:
Lucia Stanton et al., “The Monticello Plantation Database,” at Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Monticello (http://plantationdb.monticello.org/nMonticello.html : updated 2008), for “Isaiah Male 12/31/1800- (ID: 407).”
Within this framework, essentially all the other standard rules for print publications apply to online publications. For example:
• If there is no identified author/creator, the field is left blank.
• If there is no editor for the collected work (or the creator of the collected work is the same as the title of the website) the unneeded field is left blank.
• If the book exists in multiple editions or has multiple volumes, an extra field is needed to state which edition or how many volumes. Similarly, EE's website citations use that field to identify the type of online material being cited (i.e. “database” or “images,” etc.), if the title of the article or database did not indicate what type of material it is.
• If the cited source provides a citation for its own source and that needs to be recorded, it can simply be added to the end of the citation.
• Etc.
Kulath also stated:
> ESM seems to claim that her work is derived from CMoS (not Turabian) (though I can't find a reference just now).
Kulath, I’ve addressed that point in a separate thread at
https://forums.zotero.org/discussion/21137?page=1#Item_6
Questions?
Elizabeth Shown Mills
www.EvidenceExplained.com