Well Archive should be many-to-one in relation to the item, but Archive Location should be one-to-one in relation to Archive (and should be linked to a particular archive). Archive Location is only for Box nos, etc., which are locations within a particular archive.
Same goes for library catalog/call no. probably--a call no in LoC and say Harvard Library maybe slightly different, but that difference only makes sense in relation to a particular library.
In case anyone wants to play with CSL code to see how additional variables might be stitched into a style, I should mention that citeproc-js has a "cheater syntax" that can parse flat variables (not dates [yet], and not creators) out of the "Extra" (aka CSL "note") field. The syntax is like this: "{:issue:23}" (note the colons both before and after the variable name).
(I hasten to add that this isn't meant as a lingering workaround in permanent data, but for testing. Data stored in this format isn't terribly useful for production, since it won't be correctly read by other systems, and isn't officially supported by Zotero.)
PS: Actually, dates will be useful, so I've hooked up the citeproc-js parser to process valid CSL 1.0 date variables added with the "cheater" syntax. This will feature in the next processor release.
I'm not quite sure how to deal with this yet, but movies and broadcasts are still a bit unsatisfactory:
Frequently styles want directors labeled as (dir.) but that's not currently possible.
It may be quite useful to be able to cite guest in a TV-show, e.g. to get this:
Bush, George W.
2007 Interview by Jim Lehrer. The News Hour with Jim Lehrer. PBS, January 16.
(AAA style example)
is there any hope for either of this?
Many people use two languages. Some times they write in English by translating his paper in his own language to English; while sometimes they use this paper directly in his language. So we need some fields which make able to manage papers in two languages. So it will be very helpful if some fields are added. I would like to call them:
1: Translated author
2: Translated editor
3: Translated title
4: Translated journal title
5: Translated book title
6: Translated publisher
7: Translated publish place
And the abbreviations will likely be supported by a future extension to Zotero and/or CSL to allow for abbreviation lists to be referenced by specific styles, or specified for specific documents.
I would like to have a "# of pages" field in the Report type. To me, reports are more like (large) leaflets or (little) books, so "# of pages" makes more sense than "pages" (the latter implying that the report is a sub-section of what?). I don't care whether "pages" is available or not though, I would just like to have "# of pages" available. Note that I use the Report type for working/discussion papers as also has been advised elsewhere in this forum. See for examples: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2010/60/en/1/EF1060EN.pdf http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kg9q0nmbws8-en http://ftp.iza.org/dp5785.pdf
I think you're right -- this is probably just something that was overlooked when Zotero got two different pages fields-- there used to be only one "pages" field, IIRC.
absolutely yes to # of pages - the question is if we want to keep the pages field for reports- I'm inclined to say no - lets just go with replacing "pages" by "# of pages".
I want to suggest to add Meeting and Conference as new items in Zotero.
I'm now using Document or Presentation to include these in my database, but I find this unsatisfactory.
I also want to suggest adding ISDN numbers as fields in Thesis and Report
For Meeting and Conference I would like fields that are in Presentation and Conference paper, but organized differently, say:
For meeting:
Title, Participant/Notetaker, Type, Date, Place
Conference: title, Date, Place, Proceedings Title, Web page.
To sum up, I guess it is possible to get the information into existing types, but to me meeting and conference are so important item types that it would make my Zotero life better being able to use them. And it logically makes sense to enter a meeting and a conference as that and not as a kind of document. Finally, it is nice to connect papers and presentations to the meeting or conference they belong to.
For connecting items there is the "related" function. For organizational purposes there are tags. Please refer to the first post in this thread for some of the considerations that go into creating new item types.
If one needs to catalogue proceedings "as a whole", one has to use a workaround and apply "Conference Paper" or "Book". Neither of these possibilities is satisfactory enough. I would suggest creating of a new item type, which would have a similar relation to "Conference Paper" as "Book" has to "Book Section". (If you know JabRef you might guess what I have in mind.)
2. Working Paper
This is a standard type of academic work. Again, it is possible to use a workaround and apply "Document", but the "compatibility" is not full. Especially, "#Pages" and "Series" are missing. Many times "Working Paper" has got a specific "Number" (such in case of Kellog Institute, for instance) and/or "Version". Also, I would prefer to have "University" or "Institution" field intead of "Publisher", but of course this is disputable.
3. Lecture
Again, one can use "Presentation" instead, but in such case, there are important fields absent: "Institution", "(Lecture) Series", "#Pages" (in case it is a transcript), "Length" or "Duration" (in case it is a recording). There is also a redundant, and perhaps even misleading field: "Meeting Name" (of course, I understand it is an important field for a "Presentation", but not for a "Lecture"). Thus, I suggest creating a new item type in this case as well.
As for the fields of already existing item types, I would more than welcome several changes:
1. Book
I very much miss "Introduction Author" and "Foreword Author" fields. These are not the same as "Contributor", in my opinion. I would also appreciate if "Title" was accompanied by "Secondary Title" (at present one has to write both primary and secondary title in the same field, which makes the entry too long sometimes).
2. Newspaper Article
Many times one has to use "Magazine Article" for newspaper articles, as there are no "Volume" and "Issue" fields to be filled in case of the "Newspaper Article" item type.
3. TV Broadcast
There are no "Anchorman" and/or "Interviewer" fields. Predominantly, it is much more difficult to find out who the producer, director or scriptwriter is. Thus, the suggested fields would very much help to identify the item properly.
4. Video Recording
In this case, one has difficulties to fill in who the "Publisher" is, or which "Institution" has issued the video record.
1. (Conference) Proceedings What precisely do you need in such a type that you don't have in the type "Book"? Please provide an example citation of proceedings as a whole. Personally, I've found "Book" to work rather well, and I just use relations in the "related" tab to connect specific conference papers.
2. Working Paper Isn't this just "Report"? What is it missing?
3. Lecture I think that presentation will work. We could add something like "Length", to be used for pages or minutes. I agree that "Institution" would be a nice addition to the type-- I usually tack it onto "Meeting Name" or "Place". I use "Meeting Name" essentially as "Series", since it seems like an analogous relationship (presentation:meeting :: lecture:series). Wouldn't that work for you?
1. Book Re: "Introduction Author" and "Foreword Author": How do you expect these to appear in citations?
The Title/Secondary Title is usually handled by putting both in Title and just the primary title in Short Title. What are the limitations of this approach for you?
2. Newspaper Article "Volume" and "Issue" should be on their way.
3. TV Broadcast Perhaps not "Anchorman" and/or "Interviewer", but just "Correspondent"? It's a rather important role for most news-like broadcasts, I agree. The current options are pretty film-oriented.
4. Video Recording
In this case, one has difficulties to fill in who the "Publisher" is, or which "Institution" has issued the video record.
Note that you're under no obligation to use all the fields! These can be useful in some cases, although you're right that they by no means are always clear or important pieces of information.
Thanks for your reply. I am glad for the possibility to discuss these things.
ITEMS Ad 1. (Conference) Proceedings
What precisely do you need in such a type that you don't have in the type "Book"?... ...Personally, I've found "Book" to work rather well...
Of course, I use "Book" item for "Proceedings". However, I am missing there
"Institution" or "University" to fill in, who organised the conference,
"(Conference) Place", where the conference actually took place,
"(Conference) Date", when the conference actually took place.
Many times the last two entries are different from "Place" and "Date" of the published proceedings.
Ad 2. Working Paper
Isn't this just "Report"? What is it missing?
I agree "Report" is more suitable than "Document". Nevertheless, in my opinion, the basic catalogue items should not be intermingled: "Report" is simply not "Working Paper". According to this logic, we could say there is no difference between "Journal Article" and "Blog Post", or between "Thesis" and "Manuscript", or between "Encyclopedia Article" and "Dictionary Entry", or between "Presentation" and "Conference Paper". I understand one can use tags, "Report Type" or "Extra" field, to make a workaround. However, I do not consider it satisfactory. Moreover, there are still missing fields I have already mentioned:
"#Pages"
"Version"
Ad 3. Lecture
I think that presentation will work... ...I usually tack it onto "Meeting Name" or "Place". I use "Meeting Name" essentially as "Series"...
My argument against "presentation will work" is the same as in the case of mixing "Report" and "Working Paper". Of course, I use the "Meeting Name" for "Series" too (and in the "Type" field I fill in "Lecture"). Still I hope for more.
FIELDS Ad 1. Book
"Introduction Author" and "Foreword Author": How do you expect these to appear in citations?
Actually, I do not. My "problem" might be that I use Zotero as a personal library catalogue, so I try to put all the standard data in (as in standard library catalogue), which sometimes means more data than the required minimum for citations. That is the very case of "Introduction Author" and "Foreword Author". Again, one can use tags, but it is a workaround.
The Title/Secondary Title is usually handled by putting both in Title and just the primary title in Short Title.
I agree. I have not realised that possibility. Thanks for edifying me.
Ad 2. Newspaper Article
"Volume" and "Issue" should be on their way.
Great to hear. Thanks.
Ad 3. TV Broadcast
Perhaps not "Anchorman" and/or "Interviewer", but just "Correspondent"?
"Correspondent" would be fine, but he or she is not always responsible for authorship (it may be a "Reporter" behind the scenes). In case of TV news interview, I think "Interviewer" or "Anchor" is at least co-reponsible for authorship, as he or she is the one who actually asks questions (often he or she also prepares them). So, I would vote for the possibility to mention them. And how would you classify a journalist who invites two or three experts to discuss a current topic? A "Host" perhaps?
4. Video Recording
Note that you're under no obligation to use all the fields!
Indeed, I am not. However, I have referred to the case when one needed to fill in "Institution" and/or "Publisher", and there were no such fields.
no it shouldn't. Please refer to the first post for a description of how types are used and decided on. E.g. the distinction between manuscript and published source is perfectly sensible for a library, but not necessarily for a reference manager.
The idea that distinctions required in library research are not somehow reflected by reference managers strikes me as putting the cart before the horse. RMs are specifically used to locate library materials. That is the raison d'etre of professional citations. RM citation data should be a subset of the full bibliographical record, but can not live in a separate universe.
Here is an example:
The journal APMIS [LOC sn88038184] has a Supplement series which is numbered separately, but referred to in conjunction with the current volume. If the volume is 112, but the Supplement is the 117th published, the citation amounts to APMIS 112, Supplementum 117. The Supplements tend to be monographs, not extra issues with a collection of additional papers.
Thus the document type is not "journal," but "periodical." Yet Zotero, for some reason, does not have this very basic citation type. Currently, the only type which has the necessary fields is "journal article."
How are such supplements cited? If they're cited as monographs, I would treat them as books in Zotero and put that data in the Series fields. An uncontrolled proliferation of types would make citation styles nigh impossible to create, and would make it hard for most people without a background in cataloging to work effectively with Zotero.
There is no question an "uncontrolled proliferation of types" here. A reasonably complete and short list has been provided by the LOC, as linked above. The point is that a broadly established and commonly used type from this list are missing in Zotero: the periodical.
Switching from Journal article to the Book type loses the following fields: Publication, Issue, Pages, DOI, ISSN. In the case of a Supplement, the document has an ISSN as well as an ISBN.
Generally we're now conflating two issues:
1. Should Zotero adopt the LOC list - which I think it clearly shouldn't. There are things on the list that Zotero shouldn't worry about (e.g. manuscript vs. published, archival material as separate item type etc.) as item types and others where it needs to be more fine grained (e.g. legal citations, different types of archival material, reports/working papers etc.).
2. Should Zotero have a periodical item type? That's not the first time this is being requested, someone would have to dig up the old discussions, which, I believe, were mainly from French scholars.
I don't have a strong opinion on this either way. That said, DOI is scheduled to be added to all item types:
https://github.com/ajlyon/zotero-bits/issues/1
as is ISSN:
https://github.com/ajlyon/zotero-bits/issues/4
pages wouldn't be needed for a monograph, and if I understand correctly Publication and Issue would be the equivalent of Series and Series #.
Adding DOI and ISSN to types will be a big help. I would not drop the pages requirement, however, as some Supplements provide numbers in their citations. Sometimes the numbering is separate, as for a monograph, and other times it is a continuation of the page numbers in the main publication, or a switch to Roman numerals.
This would permit discriminant formatting of legal looseleaf services as well, which would be very helpful. The OSCOLA style requires that the author and publisher information be dropped from cites to looseleaf services, while other styles require it.
We need fields :
- Series (Reports often have a serie)
- Report-year
- Place
Example
Chaoulli c. Québec (Procureur général), 2005 CSC 35, [2005] 1 RCS (8e) 791 (C.S.C. C.A.) juge en Chef McLachhlin [additionnal information/short-title for hereinafter].
Example --> Information type / Field: XY
Chaoulli c. Québec (Procureur général), --> Field: Title
2005 --> Date of the decision / Field: date
CSC --> Field: Authority
35, --> Field: Number
[2005] --> Year of the report/binder/paper publication --> *Missing field*
1 --> Volume# / Field: issue
RCS --> Report/binder/book // Field: Countainer-title
(8e) --> Series of the report / *Missing field*
791 --> First page / Field: page
(C.S.C. --> Recurrent authority / (Okay, already there)
CA.) --> Geographic indication (province, country) / *Missing field*
juge en Chef McLachhlin --> Using author...
[additionnal information/short-title for hereinafter]. --> Shorrt-title for short-title, and additionnal information goes in the field: extra. However, we're also using the extra field to discriminate for more than 20+ citing styles of jurisdiction. So *Missing a field* for additionnal information like... dicident decision.
It is very awkward to use the style with all those missing fields.
Notice that the geographic indication (place) misses for bill/statute too, as well as the year of the report and serie.
Upgrade Storage
Same goes for library catalog/call no. probably--a call no in LoC and say Harvard Library maybe slightly different, but that difference only makes sense in relation to a particular library.
(I hasten to add that this isn't meant as a lingering workaround in permanent data, but for testing. Data stored in this format isn't terribly useful for production, since it won't be correctly read by other systems, and isn't officially supported by Zotero.)
PS: Actually, dates will be useful, so I've hooked up the citeproc-js parser to process valid CSL 1.0 date variables added with the "cheater" syntax. This will feature in the next processor release.
Frequently styles want directors labeled as (dir.) but that's not currently possible.
It may be quite useful to be able to cite guest in a TV-show, e.g. to get this:
Bush, George W.
2007 Interview by Jim Lehrer. The News Hour with Jim Lehrer. PBS, January 16.
(AAA style example)
is there any hope for either of this?
1: Translated author
2: Translated editor
3: Translated title
4: Translated journal title
5: Translated book title
6: Translated publisher
7: Translated publish place
Then that will be nice.
Note that I use the Report type for working/discussion papers as also has been advised elsewhere in this forum.
See for examples:
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2010/60/en/1/EF1060EN.pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kg9q0nmbws8-en
http://ftp.iza.org/dp5785.pdf
See also this thread.
https://github.com/ajlyon/zotero-bits/issues/38
I'm now using Document or Presentation to include these in my database, but I find this unsatisfactory.
I also want to suggest adding ISDN numbers as fields in Thesis and Report
If you mean ISBN, then they're planned for Thesis and Report in the next revision of the item fields.
For meeting:
Title, Participant/Notetaker, Type, Date, Place
Conference: title, Date, Place, Proceedings Title, Web page.
To sum up, I guess it is possible to get the information into existing types, but to me meeting and conference are so important item types that it would make my Zotero life better being able to use them. And it logically makes sense to enter a meeting and a conference as that and not as a kind of document. Finally, it is nice to connect papers and presentations to the meeting or conference they belong to.
as for the item types, what I miss at most is:
1. (Conference) Proceedings
If one needs to catalogue proceedings "as a whole", one has to use a workaround and apply "Conference Paper" or "Book". Neither of these possibilities is satisfactory enough. I would suggest creating of a new item type, which would have a similar relation to "Conference Paper" as "Book" has to "Book Section". (If you know JabRef you might guess what I have in mind.)
2. Working Paper
This is a standard type of academic work. Again, it is possible to use a workaround and apply "Document", but the "compatibility" is not full. Especially, "#Pages" and "Series" are missing. Many times "Working Paper" has got a specific "Number" (such in case of Kellog Institute, for instance) and/or "Version". Also, I would prefer to have "University" or "Institution" field intead of "Publisher", but of course this is disputable.
3. Lecture
Again, one can use "Presentation" instead, but in such case, there are important fields absent: "Institution", "(Lecture) Series", "#Pages" (in case it is a transcript), "Length" or "Duration" (in case it is a recording). There is also a redundant, and perhaps even misleading field: "Meeting Name" (of course, I understand it is an important field for a "Presentation", but not for a "Lecture"). Thus, I suggest creating a new item type in this case as well.
As for the fields of already existing item types, I would more than welcome several changes:
1. Book
I very much miss "Introduction Author" and "Foreword Author" fields. These are not the same as "Contributor", in my opinion. I would also appreciate if "Title" was accompanied by "Secondary Title" (at present one has to write both primary and secondary title in the same field, which makes the entry too long sometimes).
2. Newspaper Article
Many times one has to use "Magazine Article" for newspaper articles, as there are no "Volume" and "Issue" fields to be filled in case of the "Newspaper Article" item type.
3. TV Broadcast
There are no "Anchorman" and/or "Interviewer" fields. Predominantly, it is much more difficult to find out who the producer, director or scriptwriter is. Thus, the suggested fields would very much help to identify the item properly.
4. Video Recording
In this case, one has difficulties to fill in who the "Publisher" is, or which "Institution" has issued the video record.
Thanks to anybody taking notice of my post.
Regards
JR
What precisely do you need in such a type that you don't have in the type "Book"? Please provide an example citation of proceedings as a whole. Personally, I've found "Book" to work rather well, and I just use relations in the "related" tab to connect specific conference papers.
2. Working Paper
Isn't this just "Report"? What is it missing?
3. Lecture
I think that presentation will work. We could add something like "Length", to be used for pages or minutes. I agree that "Institution" would be a nice addition to the type-- I usually tack it onto "Meeting Name" or "Place". I use "Meeting Name" essentially as "Series", since it seems like an analogous relationship (presentation:meeting :: lecture:series). Wouldn't that work for you?
1. Book
Re: "Introduction Author" and "Foreword Author":
How do you expect these to appear in citations?
The Title/Secondary Title is usually handled by putting both in Title and just the primary title in Short Title. What are the limitations of this approach for you?
2. Newspaper Article
"Volume" and "Issue" should be on their way.
3. TV Broadcast
Perhaps not "Anchorman" and/or "Interviewer", but just "Correspondent"? It's a rather important role for most news-like broadcasts, I agree. The current options are pretty film-oriented.
4. Video Recording Note that you're under no obligation to use all the fields! These can be useful in some cases, although you're right that they by no means are always clear or important pieces of information.
Thanks for your reply. I am glad for the possibility to discuss these things.
ITEMS
Ad 1. (Conference) Proceedings Of course, I use "Book" item for "Proceedings". However, I am missing there
- "Institution" or "University" to fill in, who organised the conference,
- "(Conference) Place", where the conference actually took place,
- "(Conference) Date", when the conference actually took place.
Many times the last two entries are different from "Place" and "Date" of the published proceedings.Ad 2. Working Paper I agree "Report" is more suitable than "Document". Nevertheless, in my opinion, the basic catalogue items should not be intermingled: "Report" is simply not "Working Paper". According to this logic, we could say there is no difference between "Journal Article" and "Blog Post", or between "Thesis" and "Manuscript", or between "Encyclopedia Article" and "Dictionary Entry", or between "Presentation" and "Conference Paper". I understand one can use tags, "Report Type" or "Extra" field, to make a workaround. However, I do not consider it satisfactory. Moreover, there are still missing fields I have already mentioned:
- "#Pages"
- "Version"
Ad 3. Lecture My argument against "presentation will work" is the same as in the case of mixing "Report" and "Working Paper". Of course, I use the "Meeting Name" for "Series" too (and in the "Type" field I fill in "Lecture"). Still I hope for more.FIELDS
Ad 1. Book Actually, I do not. My "problem" might be that I use Zotero as a personal library catalogue, so I try to put all the standard data in (as in standard library catalogue), which sometimes means more data than the required minimum for citations. That is the very case of "Introduction Author" and "Foreword Author". Again, one can use tags, but it is a workaround. I agree. I have not realised that possibility. Thanks for edifying me.
Ad 2. Newspaper Article Great to hear. Thanks.
Ad 3. TV Broadcast "Correspondent" would be fine, but he or she is not always responsible for authorship (it may be a "Reporter" behind the scenes). In case of TV news interview, I think "Interviewer" or "Anchor" is at least co-reponsible for authorship, as he or she is the one who actually asks questions (often he or she also prepares them). So, I would vote for the possibility to mention them. And how would you classify a journalist who invites two or three experts to discuss a current topic? A "Host" perhaps?
4. Video Recording Indeed, I am not. However, I have referred to the case when one needed to fill in "Institution" and/or "Publisher", and there were no such fields.
Regards
JR
http://authorities.loc.gov/help/typemat.htm
MD.
Here is an example:
The journal APMIS [LOC sn88038184] has a Supplement series which is numbered separately, but referred to in conjunction with the current volume. If the volume is 112, but the Supplement is the 117th published, the citation amounts to APMIS 112, Supplementum 117. The Supplements tend to be monographs, not extra issues with a collection of additional papers.
Thus the document type is not "journal," but "periodical." Yet Zotero, for some reason, does not have this very basic citation type. Currently, the only type which has the necessary fields is "journal article."
Switching from Journal article to the Book type loses the following fields: Publication, Issue, Pages, DOI, ISSN. In the case of a Supplement, the document has an ISSN as well as an ISBN.
1. Should Zotero adopt the LOC list - which I think it clearly shouldn't. There are things on the list that Zotero shouldn't worry about (e.g. manuscript vs. published, archival material as separate item type etc.) as item types and others where it needs to be more fine grained (e.g. legal citations, different types of archival material, reports/working papers etc.).
2. Should Zotero have a periodical item type? That's not the first time this is being requested, someone would have to dig up the old discussions, which, I believe, were mainly from French scholars.
I don't have a strong opinion on this either way. That said, DOI is scheduled to be added to all item types:
https://github.com/ajlyon/zotero-bits/issues/1
as is ISSN:
https://github.com/ajlyon/zotero-bits/issues/4
pages wouldn't be needed for a monograph, and if I understand correctly Publication and Issue would be the equivalent of Series and Series #.
Adding DOI and ISSN to types will be a big help. I would not drop the pages requirement, however, as some Supplements provide numbers in their citations. Sometimes the numbering is separate, as for a monograph, and other times it is a continuation of the page numbers in the main publication, or a switch to Roman numerals.
+1 for adding a "periodical" type.
This would permit discriminant formatting of legal looseleaf services as well, which would be very helpful. The OSCOLA style requires that the author and publisher information be dropped from cites to looseleaf services, while other styles require it.
OSCOLA (section 3.2.7)
http://www.law.ox.ac.uk/published/OSCOLA_4th_edn.pdf
Australian Guide to Legal citation (large PDF but it's rule 6.4, page 106)
http://mulr.law.unimelb.edu.au/go/AGLC3
We need fields :
- Series (Reports often have a serie)
- Report-year
- Place
Example
Chaoulli c. Québec (Procureur général), 2005 CSC 35, [2005] 1 RCS (8e) 791 (C.S.C. C.A.) juge en Chef McLachhlin [additionnal information/short-title for hereinafter].
Example --> Information type / Field: XY
Chaoulli c. Québec (Procureur général), --> Field: Title
2005 --> Date of the decision / Field: date
CSC --> Field: Authority
35, --> Field: Number
[2005] --> Year of the report/binder/paper publication --> *Missing field*
1 --> Volume# / Field: issue
RCS --> Report/binder/book // Field: Countainer-title
(8e) --> Series of the report / *Missing field*
791 --> First page / Field: page
(C.S.C. --> Recurrent authority / (Okay, already there)
CA.) --> Geographic indication (province, country) / *Missing field*
juge en Chef McLachhlin --> Using author...
[additionnal information/short-title for hereinafter]. --> Shorrt-title for short-title, and additionnal information goes in the field: extra. However, we're also using the extra field to discriminate for more than 20+ citing styles of jurisdiction. So *Missing a field* for additionnal information like... dicident decision.
It is very awkward to use the style with all those missing fields.
Notice that the geographic indication (place) misses for bill/statute too, as well as the year of the report and serie.
Frank?