DOI for all 'Item Types'

johngoldenboy
Nowadays, almost all items (data sets, theses, reports, manuscripts, audio files, etc.) do have a DOI number, for very good reasons. However, I am not able to implement this in Zotero (only per URL), and this is a major downside, forcing me to change the items to what they acutally are not.

QUESTION: Can Zotero not make a quick update offering a DOI field in any 'item type', that is, going with modern times?

Also, introduce the items "software" and "data set"?
  • adamsmith
    All of this is planned (software already exists -- it's called computer program), but no, it can't be done quickly. Database changes are complicated because of the syncing infrastructure.
  • johngoldenboy
    I don't get the joke (?) with the computer program, but I appreciate the answer.

    I guess I need to wait then. Anyhow, from my side a compliment to the Zotero software as of now, as a scientist I am using it indeed every day, and it really eases my life.
  • adamsmith
    no joke -- there is an item type "Computer Program" in Zotero, which you should use for software.
  • julianausserhofer
    edited October 27, 2016
    @adamsmith: Can you already estimate when you will implement the DOI field for every item?
    Best,
    Julian
  • nickbart
    For the time being, a workaround can be used: Enter the following into the “Extra” field, each on a new line:

    DOI: 10.1234/567890

    and/or

    type: dataset

    See https://citeproc-js.readthedocs.io/en/latest/csl-json/markup.html#cheater-syntax-for-odd-fields

    @adamsmith:

    (1) What “host” type would you recommend for a dataset – “Journal Article”? (I believe that’s what some import translators use …)

    (2) CMoS 16e (“14.272 Scientific databases”) seems to list database entries only:

    > GenBank (for RP11-322N14 BAC [accession number AC017046]; accessed October 6, 2009). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Genbank/.

    > NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (object name IRAS F00400+4059; accessed October 6, 2009). http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/.

    But: What field would you suggest for individual entries like these?

    I tried

    medium: object name IRAS F00400+4059

    in the “Extra” field, which works, sort of, but the format is not quite right, and the accessed date is missing.

    Or should the database name go to “container-title” in such cases, and the name of the entry to “title”? (But note that CMoS seems to want “NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database” as “the” title, also used in-text, substituting for the (missing) author.)

    Either way, fixing the Chicago styles as you see fit would be appreciated.
  • adamsmith
    @julianausserhofer no, sorry. Definitely won't be super soon; i.e. it won't happen in a month. Beyond that it really could be anything from 3months if things go super smoothly to over a year if they don't...

    @nickbart I can take a look, but the manual really doesn't know what it's doing with databases/datasets, so I'm not sure how worthwhile it is to try to stick to their requirements all that closely. Intuitively, I'd have cite the above examples as webpages, given the URL/access date combo.
  • julianausserhofer
    Ok, thanks though for the reply, @adamsmith; and also thanks for the hint, @nickbart.
  • bwiernik
    @nickbart I don't believe that trying to override item types in Extra with 'itemType: dataset' works. I definitely think that web site should give the most accurate output. The only reason that journal article is used by translators is to get access to the DOI field, which is not so much a concern now that all fields can be put in Extra with flat formatting.
  • nickbart
    > I don't believe that trying to override item types in Extra with 'itemType: dataset' works.

    It's “type: dataset”, and it does work with citeproc-js. See https://citeproc-js.readthedocs.io/en/latest/csl-json/markup.html#cheater-syntax-for-odd-fields.
  • bwiernik
    Ah, okay. At some point item type override didn't work--that must have changed.
  • adamsmith
    yeah, that's very new. Not sure when Frank changed that (but I'm glad he did).

This is an old discussion that has not been active in a long time. Before commenting here, you should strongly consider starting a new discussion instead. If you think the content of this discussion is still relevant, you can link to it from your new discussion.

Sign In or Register to comment.