- there was a document style for standards.

Is there any reason "Document" isn't sufficient?

@noksagt: agree, but just emphasizes that this needs fixing. There's no reason a generic "Document" type couldn't suffice if it was designed right.

I independently found a need for a "standard" document type & started a new thread. I was then pointed here. So I'll reiterate my remarks, which include some additional information, & hope they get some attention.

These are very important for people in engineering disciplines. They are generally similar to the "Statute" type. Generally there is a standards organization--ANSI, ISO, ASTM, IEEE, and so on--and a number. Often there are two; a national or trade organization that writes the standard and assigns its number (ASTM, IEEE, IESNA, IETF, etc.) and an umbrella national or international organization which assigns a different number gives the standard regulatory force (ISO, ANSI, DIN, JIS, CCITT, etc.)

There is usually a collective author, that is often a designated committee: IEEE 802 Committee, or a subgroup: IEEE 802.14 working group.

Standards in progress sometimes have different designations than finished standards; sometimes they only have names, rather than numbers.

Sample citation formats can be found in the following stylebooks:

ASTM: http://www.astm.org/COMMIT/Blue_Book.pdf
See section G22

IEEE: http://standards.ieee.org/guides/style/2009_Style_Manual.pdf
See section 19.2

The "document" type doesn't provide enough structured information for generation of a bibliographic entry.

Generally, the most important field I'd want would be the standard code. In some cases two standard codes--author and regulatory authority--are needed, though that's mostly changed with newer standards. Notes on what has superseded what are sometimes useful. Authorities vary on citation form, but, for instance:

Unicode 5.1.0, The Unicode Standard, 5.1.0. The Unicode Consortium, 2008.

ISO/IEC 10646:2003, Information technology -- Universal Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set. ISO JTC1/SC 2/WG 2, 2003. (Or ISO Information Technology Comittee 1, Subcommitee 2, Working Group 2, but these are seldom spelled out. The ISO is a huge publisher, with over 17,500 standards in print.)

EIA RS-232-C. Interface Between Data Terminal Equipment and Data Communication Equipment Employing Serial Data Interchange. Electronic Industries Association, 1969.

Publisher and date are often omitted (it is to some extent redundant to include them), but I find them useful, especially with older standards. Notice also that I give them last: the code and title are more important than the author and, for instance, the IEEE dispenses with them entirely in bibliographies in its own standards.

Another bibliographic note on standards: they often have ISBN numbers, which makes the "report" type inappropriate, despite its applicability for other reasons. See, for instance CIBSE TM-14.

Correct, Frank.

@rfritz: not following what you mean.

Take for example the MISC style in BibTex that is used for IETF RFCs (search for rfc.bib). Currently Zotero can't show these properly in any reference style.

1. I do import the rfc.bib into Zotero. The RFCs become Book entries. The needed part is in the field "extra". The Book entry contains also series and serie number which are filled in by the RFC number and "Request For Comments" text.

2. I reference the RFCs in the text

3. The RFC number does not show in the bibliography as no style includes the field "extra", or "Series", or "Series Number".

How can I create my own style that will fix this?!

I agree almost with all the comments in relation with the need of a "standard type" entry. Everydays standards became increasingly cited in scientific documents. However, I found that using the type document and putting the document number as the author entry, and the collective author (the committee) as editorial, the reference renders nicely, at least for Harvad (author - year) citation.

Hello,

i would just emphasize the need for a standard type…

Since we have already a type for patents, i really don't see any reason why not have a type for standards…

There are numerous organizations that publish standards, some of them are mentioned here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standards_organization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Standards_organizations

These are organizations that do mainly standards, but on the other hand, every bigger company does publish standards, like general electric, siemens, vw, etc…
There are also people who rely on them more or less, like people in government bureaus and similar organizations but also engineers in the commercial technology fields. Just recently someone of a federal bureau for occupational safety asked me where the standards type wood be… well i could only write him that there is none, and point to some workarounds…

Additionally, collecting the standards all under the hood of the document item type really makes things intransparent. And depending on how you do it, you may need special citation styles. That makes it incompatible when you want to share with others who have used another workaround…..

Maybe we could take the patent type as a start for the standards type since it is quite similar…
i try to get started with basic fields here, patent type on the left , standard type on the right.
Feel free to comment / suggest etc…

*title = title
*inventor/attorney/agent/contributor = usually there is none since standards are issued by groups. But there can be one or more responsible persons - although one wouldn't list them in a bibliography.
*Abstract = Abstract
*Place = Place
*Country = Country
*Assignee =
*Issuing Authority = Issuing Authority (full name)
*Patent Number = Standards Number
*Filing Date =
*Pages = Pages
*Application number =
*Priority Numbers =
*Issue Date = Issue Date
*References = ?? References, could include superseded standards, but that's optional, i would say.
*Legal Status =
*Language = Language
*Short Title = Short Title
*URL, Accessed, Rights, Extra = "as usual"

Additional fields could be:
*type or genre: specification, test method, procedure, guide etc…
*Issuing Authority abbreviation: i.e.: EN, ISO, IEEE, DIN, ASME,
*Issuing Workgroup: for example NAFuO (that's from DIN EN ISO 11807-2)
*ICS class: for example 01.040.31; 31.260 - see for info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Classification_for_Standards
*part: lots of standards have more than one part - but mostly that is included/appended to the number, for example: ANSI ASME B1.20.1

Honestly, I don't have any idea how and where to map these fields… but I also don't know what fields get mapped where regarding the other item types that exist in zotero.

greetings

Frank-- Would you mind writing up an issue in the Github issue tracker for such a type? (https://github.com/ajlyon/zotero-bits/issues)

no. You should feel free to add an issue both on the github page linked to above (for Zotero) and here
https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/issues?state=open
(for CSL)

Include info on needed fields and citation formats in a couple of relevant styles. Note that the general attitude toward adding item types is always conservative, so you may have to "defend" the item type somewhat, don't be discouraged by that. Also, with fbennett you have a powerful ally in your corner ;-)

two pages because the CSL project is separate from Zotero. Even if you're not going to use the citation format, citation output is still going to be the key criterium for getting this into Zotero. If it's not needed to create correct citations, there is only a minimal chance that it will be included.

edit: the issue trackers are open - one general github account will do, I believe.

yes - see edit above.

Hi all,


i created this as an entry on
https://github.com/ajlyon/zotero-bits/issues
also with a lin k to this topic here.
What I didnt find out was how to tag it for 'item-type' and 'CSL-change'...

greetings

##edit
well, here is the link: https://github.com/ajlyon/zotero-bits/issues/52