CSL: term "linguistics"

mark
I've recently been working on a couple of Linguistics styles (see e.g. Language (LSA), Journal of Pragmatics).

When I validate these styles I get only one error: "bad value for attribute "term"". I'm guessing this is because the term "linguistics" is not part of the schema. I'm also guessing that the "term" element is being used to categorize styles. If so, can "linguistics" be added as a term?

[Edit: I realize this is probably the wrong venue for this question. But I don't want to subscribe to yet another mailinglist.]
  • mark
    Okay, the suggested workaround has been to use the category 'generic' or some such thing. I think it would help adoption of Zotero and CSL in Linguistics if there was a specific category term available. Currently the list as given here contains sister fields like anthropology and literature, but not linguistics proper. Bruce, if you see this, how do you think about adding linguistics?
  • adamsmith
    not that I would mind - but why do you care (and why should other linguists?).
    I don't think that information is used for anything.
    It could become relevant for sorting styles, I guess - in which case the categories should be rethought, anyway. No economics? Business administration or something along those lines? I'm sure other things may look strange.
  • mark
    Sorting/filtering later on. Right now the terms are not used, but I'm quite sure the style repository will look different sometime in the future, and that it will involve various sorting options, or perhaps display the terms as tags (since you can have multiple categories).
  • mark
    Though on second thought, perhaps it's not such a good idea to hardcode categorization into the CSL files. It certainly makes sense to use the categories for form-specific categorizations, e.g. author-date, numeric, etc., but I'm not sure whether the same should hold for subject area categorization. Maybe that would be more something for an extra (user-generated) layer in the repository.
  • RintzeRintze
    Well, the subject/field categories of a given style probably won't change over time, so keeping that as metadata within the style seems to make the most sense. That said, I think there is something to say for a more comprehensive listing. Maybe the following list would be a good candidate?

    http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=expand
  • bdarcus
    The purpose of the terms is just to make it easier to find styles. The categories tend a little towards being more generic on the theory that it's more important to be able to describe a style accurately than it is precisely. I have no problem adding new terms at all. But I don't really want to get intensely detailed.
  • mark
    Rintze's list looks like a good reference point. Anyway, what prompted this topic was how to categorize styles for specific linguistic journals. 'Literature' and 'Anthropology' are distinct fields with distinct journals and styles, while 'Humanities' is much too broad a category to be useful. That's why I suggested adding 'Linguistics'.
  • bdarcus
    I have no problem adding it; just did.

    I was just explaining why I'm uncomfortable adding the entire list. Might have something to do with the fact that it makes a common mistake, which is categorizing my discipline as only a science ;-)

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.