Question: local extensions to schema?
A quick question that may have a quicker answer. Is there a right way to make local modifications to the DB schema? We will need a containerAuthor field for local use. I can shoehorn one in, but I really don't like the idea of diverging from the standard schema. Is there a graceful or safe way to extend the DB?
John Doe and Jane Roe, Progress Cambodia, Working Conditions in the Weaving Industry (1998).
If the institutional author sponsoring the report is entered as an author-type creator, the names collapse to "John Doe et al.", which is not right. If the individual authors are entered as contributor-type creators, this suggests a collection of essays or chapters by separate people, and my style delivers italics for the names instead of small caps. Logically, there is no way past this problem without another field.
This is not about hierarchical relations; the sponsoring institution might have done only one report, and it might have been authored entirely by one individual consultant.
We're going to see a lot of this type of cite here. It would simplify things a lot at this end if the field could be added to the standard schema.
FWIW.
We can't avoid local extensions to the schema, so we'll find some way to keep the migration process orderly and safe. I've had another look through the possibilities, and it looks like the least violent alternative for this issue is to open the "sponsor" field to books. Is there an alternative treatment for contracted studies that would be better?
This will take a bit of work to set up, but once it's done we'll be free to hack in additional fields locally without trapping our users in a development fork or cul-de-sac. That will release some of the pressure for immediate solutions from the community, so that we can have more leisurely discussions over standards as people have time available (I'm putting a lot of time into getting up to speed and getting things in place at the moment, but when next term starts I'll be racing against the clock just like everyone else).
Tools to build the tools to build the tools ...
http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/4497/thesis-problem/?Focus=19579#Comment_19579
http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/339/additional-fields/?Focus=18612#Comment_18612
I also would very much appreciate a dedicated status field (with preset values like submitted, in press, accepted, etc):
http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/882/
http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/4418/in-press-as-item-type/