That is what I'm doing now, but the issue becomes exporting into a citation (which I have yet to do). I would still like to see a the document type menu have an option for "other" which allows a write-in of the document type.
djkaiser--Use "manuscript"--there is a field for type of manuscript where you can put "play manuscript" or something like that. In most cases, "manuscript" is appropriate for any unpublished source, including a play manuscript or study guide.
Bruce--Zotero "document" item type is actually unusable for most "other" items at least for two reasons: 1. it doesn't have a field for "type" of source--how do you indicate what you're actually citing? 2. it doesn't have a field for "place" (of either publication or writing). It has a publisher field, but anything published usually requires place of publication, while most unpublished sources will need a field for "place" or "city" where the document was produced.
Bruce--Zotero "document" item type is actually unusable for most "other" items at least for two reasons: 1. it doesn't have a field for "type" of source--how do you indicate what you're actually citing?
Well, first, I think assigning types is over-rated. I rarely find it necessary practically, and I do cite archival documents. I often end up including that information in the title (since they often aren't titled).
But more importantly (since not everyone agrees with me), let's have the Zotero guys add such a field. This field would be understood as a plain text description that would be printed in the bibliographic entry.
The problem when you do plain text, of course, is the content is then language-specific. So this bears some thought. I'd be really careful that it fits within the plans we've discussed on the dev list (custom types and such).
2. it doesn't have a field for "place" (of either publication or writing). It has a publisher field, but anything published usually requires place of publication, while most unpublished sources will need a field for "place" or "city" where the document was produced.
Switching to the richer model would solve this: a publisher is an organization, which is an agent that has an address.
Well, it doesn't matter to me--for me, "manuscript" is perfectly adequate for citing any unpublished source, and "book" or "book section" can be hacked to store much more of the information for any published source than "document". I'm just not sure how useful "document" is given its limited fields.
Well, first, I think assigning types is over-rated. I rarely find it necessary practically, and I do cite archival documents. I often end up including that information in the title (since they often aren't titled).
I'm not sure what citation style you usually use, but in Chicago the "type" is used routinely for sources--see, for example, Chicago 15, 17.244:
6. National Transportation Safety Board, "Airline fatalities for 1994 climbed to five-year high," news release, January 19, 1995.
Where "news release" is "type" of source. I don't think that this information is any different from data in any other field--it shouldn't present any problems for the hierarchical/custom types model.
Note: I'm open to changing my mind, but I really think there are bigger and more important fish to fry before we worry about all the eccentricities of some styles (like Chicago).
I'm guessing you don't use Chicago. Although scholars in many disciplines use archival sources, most citation styles have very limited standards and guidelines for citing archival material. Chicago style (the standard style for historians) provides the most complete guidelines for those of us who primarily work in archives, and it makes sense that in determining field structure for unpublished sources Zotero use Chicago.
Any future plans for Zotero and related standards need to pay more, not less, attention to specific "idiosyncratic" needs of historians. Currently, Zotero has dedicated item types for dictionary entry and encyclopedia entry, which are glorified "book section" types with no additional fields whatsoever, while I have to explain to historians here and elsewhere that they have to wait for dedicated item types for sources like "archival collection" and "periodical"--types that need their own bibliographic citation format and translator programming and right now are ingested from catalogs such as WorldCat, incorrectly, as books.
[Edit: Just to reinforce my point about the need to adapt Zotero for historical research--see this review of Zotero. Many of the features suggested in the review are already planned, but some are not, and the main point clearly needs to be emphasized more.]
I'm guessing you don't use Chicago. Although scholars in many disciplines use archival sources, most citation styles have very limited standards and guidelines for citing archival material. Chicago style (the standard style for historians) provides the most complete guidelines for those of us who primarily work in archives, and it makes sense that in determining field structure for unpublished sources Zotero use Chicago.
Journals (and book publishers) in my field tend to derive their styles from Chicago and APA.
My point is that massive styles like Chicago are sort of like the Bible: a set of guidelines that are in fact rather flexible, but which people read into them a rather inflexible set of rules that reflect their own preconceptions.
Spend some time with other simlar styles in other fields and you'll see the same thing.
Any future plans for Zotero and related standards need to pay more, not less, attention to specific "idiosyncratic" needs of historians.
So Zotero is a tool for historians? What about the philosophers, and the mathmeticians, and the geographers (me), and the chemists, all of whom tend to have their priorities?
I'd really like a tool that can make everyone happy. A good design and model should allow just that, but blind following of the letter of a single style guide (Chicago) may not.
WRT to the type issues, if we get people from all fields in a room and ask them to list their pet types, zotero will end up with 200 of them easily. Chicago alone has 50 or 60 IIRC, depending on how you count.
Currently, Zotero has dedicated item types for dictionary entry and encyclopedia entry, which are glorified "book section" types with no additional fields whatsoever, while I have to explain to historians here and elsewhere that they have to wait for dedicated item types for sources like "archival collection" and "periodical"--types that need their own bibliographic citation format and translator programming and right now are ingested from catalogs such as WorldCat, incorrectly, as books.
I agree with the basic point that there is no rhyme or reason to the existing list of types. I've repeatedly been saying we need to have a conversation about the principles that say when something gets its own type.
I still stand by my point though, that periodicals and collections are not ever cited as such. The main problem in the current Zotero model is that they are not full class objects in the data model that are then related to other resources: they just get treated as fields.
I still stand by my point though, that periodicals and collections are not ever cited as such.
Here are the first three pages of a bibliography beginning with a section of manuscript collections and another one of periodicals. This is from:
Charles F. McGovern, Sold American: Consumption and Citizenship, 1890-1945 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006).
So Zotero is a tool for historians? What about the philosophers, and the mathmeticians, and the geographers (me), and the chemists, all of whom tend to have their priorities?
I believe that while the specific requirements of, for example, legal scholars or social scientists will be well taken care of in the proposed model, historians' requirements are not entirely taken into account. This forum seems to be an appropriate place to argue for features that should be included, which is why I've been posting here.
Here are the first three pages of a bibliography beginning with a section of manuscript collections and another one of periodicals.
Great example. I guess I sort of stand corrected, though will just note those aren't really citations per se; more like grouped lists of sources.
It's admittedly a gray area though, and in any case, treating them as full class objects is critical, no matter their specific semantics.
I believe that while the specific requirements of, for example, legal scholars or social scientists will be well taken care of in the proposed model, historians' requirements are not entirely taken into account.
I have a feeling the legal scholars might disagree. From what I know, their needs may well be more demanding, particularly because of the importance of tracing the history of precedent (a long lists of linked resources, basically).
But see below on the last bit.
This forum seems to be an appropriate place to argue for features that should be included, which is why I've been posting here.
Yes, and I for one love to see the historians active here! My owns needs are much closer to the historians than it is to the chemists, and I've been saying for a long time that existing bibliographic software and standards really have treated the humanities and law as afterthoughts. Clearly that won't happen here ;-)
All I'm saying is that there's a difference between arguing for what one needs to store (who authored the introduction, or whether a document is a "press release") and how one should do it (add a field "introduction by" or "add an item type 'Press Release'", or something else).
Great example. I guess I sort of stand corrected, though will just note those aren't really citations per se; more like grouped lists of sources.
Just to remove all doubt--here are the first two pages of a bibliography including formatted manuscript collections and periodicals with abbreviations. These are citations. From:
Emily Thompson, The Soundscape of Modernity: Architectural Acoustics and the Culture of Listening in America, 1900-1933 (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2002).
All I'm saying is that there's a difference between arguing for what one needs to store (who authored the introduction, or whether a document is a "press release") and how one should do it (add a field "introduction by" or "add an item type 'Press Release'", or something else).
My point was that one can't use "document" to cite a press release because there are not enough fields to store data. I'm fine with using "manuscript", and using "type of manuscript" field to denote a type of source such as "press release." That could work for the future model, or it may not--that is for the "ontology" team to decide--but "document" definitely won't work.
Just to remove all doubt--here are the first two pages of a bibliography including formatted manuscript collections and periodicals with abbreviations. These are citations.
How so? You're still showing a fragment of a bibliography; not a citation.
Is there some place in the text where you see an actual citation like "(AT&T Archives)"?
In my experience with these sorts of examples (which is more limited than yours): no. It seems to me the convention of listing archives or newspapers in the bibliography is just way to say where the cited documents came from, and sometimes to include within that an abbreviation that one uses within the citation proper (mainly for the convenience of the author, rather than the reader, BTW).
But, for example, I wouldn't expect if this was automated in Zotero that you would be manually inserting citation fields in your documents to the archives or newspapers. Would you?
Mind you, I'm still not sure how one *would* automate it elegantly! But I know John has been thinking about this a bit.
My point was that one can't use "document" to cite a press release because there are not enough fields to store data. I'm fine with using "manuscript", and using "type of manuscript" field to denote a type of source such as "press release." That could work for the future model, or it may not--that is for the "ontology" team to decide--but "document" definitely won't work.
If you need to include full publisher or archive information, true: it won't work *now*, with the existing model, which is rather inflexible. But a manuscript is still just an unpublished document.
You're still showing a fragment of a bibliography; not a citation.
Is there some place in the text where you see an actual citation like "(AT&T Archives)"?
But, for example, I wouldn't expect if this was automated in Zotero that you would be manually inserting citation fields in your documents to the archives or newspapers. Would you?
You wouldn't need a footnote, only a formatted bibliographic citation. (But doesn't a bibliographic citation need to be formatted in CSL as well as a footnote?) It would be nice to have an automatic way of exporting formatted manuscript sources from Zotero into a bibliography, or to insert formatted bibliographic citations for manuscripts into an automatically-generated bibliography via Word plugin. Lists of abbreviations for archives and periodicals are also common, and it would be nice to be able to export those as well.
You wouldn't need a footnote, only a formatted bibliographic citation. (But doesn't a bibliographic citation need to be formatted in CSL as well as a footnote?) .
Yes.
It would be nice to have an automatic way of exporting formatted manuscript sources from Zotero into a bibliography, or to insert formatted bibliographic citations for manuscripts into an automatically-generated bibliography via Word plugin. Lists of abbreviations for archives and periodicals are also common, and it would be nice to be able to export those as well.
CSL has a concept of bibliography "groups." It's not really been implemented anywhere, so is still a little fuzzy, but I think this is where one would look for the solution. Just a question of exactly how best to do it; I hadn't really thought of this example when designing it, and it is a little different (rather than grouping citation sources, you're actually listing/grouping where those sources came from).
A request: I'd like to see the document type "Chat" created, or else for Moderator to be an option in the Author field under Document. I would like to cite a virtual roundtable chat without having to name all the participants.
Since the idea that types are too limited in what fields they allow (your second suggestion), I'll just underline this again as something that is an easy fix that would go a long way.
I've added code to citeproc-js, for use in style development, that allows CSL fields not provided on an application (Zotero) item to be parsed out of the "note" variable. It's a hack, and perhaps should be disabled by default, but it may help establish the case for particular extensions to available fields, and allow style development to proceed in advance of changes within Zotero proper.
Upgrade Storage
Bruce--Zotero "document" item type is actually unusable for most "other" items at least for two reasons: 1. it doesn't have a field for "type" of source--how do you indicate what you're actually citing? 2. it doesn't have a field for "place" (of either publication or writing). It has a publisher field, but anything published usually requires place of publication, while most unpublished sources will need a field for "place" or "city" where the document was produced.
But more importantly (since not everyone agrees with me), let's have the Zotero guys add such a field. This field would be understood as a plain text description that would be printed in the bibliographic entry.
The problem when you do plain text, of course, is the content is then language-specific. So this bears some thought. I'd be really careful that it fits within the plans we've discussed on the dev list (custom types and such). Switching to the richer model would solve this: a publisher is an organization, which is an agent that has an address.
6. National Transportation Safety Board, "Airline fatalities for 1994 climbed to five-year high," news release, January 19, 1995.
Where "news release" is "type" of source. I don't think that this information is any different from data in any other field--it shouldn't present any problems for the hierarchical/custom types model.
But given your post here: I'm guessing you don't use Chicago. Although scholars in many disciplines use archival sources, most citation styles have very limited standards and guidelines for citing archival material. Chicago style (the standard style for historians) provides the most complete guidelines for those of us who primarily work in archives, and it makes sense that in determining field structure for unpublished sources Zotero use Chicago.
Any future plans for Zotero and related standards need to pay more, not less, attention to specific "idiosyncratic" needs of historians. Currently, Zotero has dedicated item types for dictionary entry and encyclopedia entry, which are glorified "book section" types with no additional fields whatsoever, while I have to explain to historians here and elsewhere that they have to wait for dedicated item types for sources like "archival collection" and "periodical"--types that need their own bibliographic citation format and translator programming and right now are ingested from catalogs such as WorldCat, incorrectly, as books.
[Edit: Just to reinforce my point about the need to adapt Zotero for historical research--see this review of Zotero. Many of the features suggested in the review are already planned, but some are not, and the main point clearly needs to be emphasized more.]
My point is that massive styles like Chicago are sort of like the Bible: a set of guidelines that are in fact rather flexible, but which people read into them a rather inflexible set of rules that reflect their own preconceptions.
Spend some time with other simlar styles in other fields and you'll see the same thing. So Zotero is a tool for historians? What about the philosophers, and the mathmeticians, and the geographers (me), and the chemists, all of whom tend to have their priorities?
I'd really like a tool that can make everyone happy. A good design and model should allow just that, but blind following of the letter of a single style guide (Chicago) may not.
WRT to the type issues, if we get people from all fields in a room and ask them to list their pet types, zotero will end up with 200 of them easily. Chicago alone has 50 or 60 IIRC, depending on how you count. I agree with the basic point that there is no rhyme or reason to the existing list of types. I've repeatedly been saying we need to have a conversation about the principles that say when something gets its own type.
I still stand by my point though, that periodicals and collections are not ever cited as such. The main problem in the current Zotero model is that they are not full class objects in the data model that are then related to other resources: they just get treated as fields.
Charles F. McGovern, Sold American: Consumption and Citizenship, 1890-1945 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006). I believe that while the specific requirements of, for example, legal scholars or social scientists will be well taken care of in the proposed model, historians' requirements are not entirely taken into account. This forum seems to be an appropriate place to argue for features that should be included, which is why I've been posting here.
It's admittedly a gray area though, and in any case, treating them as full class objects is critical, no matter their specific semantics. I have a feeling the legal scholars might disagree. From what I know, their needs may well be more demanding, particularly because of the importance of tracing the history of precedent (a long lists of linked resources, basically).
But see below on the last bit. Yes, and I for one love to see the historians active here! My owns needs are much closer to the historians than it is to the chemists, and I've been saying for a long time that existing bibliographic software and standards really have treated the humanities and law as afterthoughts. Clearly that won't happen here ;-)
All I'm saying is that there's a difference between arguing for what one needs to store (who authored the introduction, or whether a document is a "press release") and how one should do it (add a field "introduction by" or "add an item type 'Press Release'", or something else).
Emily Thompson, The Soundscape of Modernity: Architectural Acoustics and the Culture of Listening in America, 1900-1933 (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2002). My point was that one can't use "document" to cite a press release because there are not enough fields to store data. I'm fine with using "manuscript", and using "type of manuscript" field to denote a type of source such as "press release." That could work for the future model, or it may not--that is for the "ontology" team to decide--but "document" definitely won't work.
Is there some place in the text where you see an actual citation like "(AT&T Archives)"?
In my experience with these sorts of examples (which is more limited than yours): no. It seems to me the convention of listing archives or newspapers in the bibliography is just way to say where the cited documents came from, and sometimes to include within that an abbreviation that one uses within the citation proper (mainly for the convenience of the author, rather than the reader, BTW).
But, for example, I wouldn't expect if this was automated in Zotero that you would be manually inserting citation fields in your documents to the archives or newspapers. Would you?
Mind you, I'm still not sure how one *would* automate it elegantly! But I know John has been thinking about this a bit. If you need to include full publisher or archive information, true: it won't work *now*, with the existing model, which is rather inflexible. But a manuscript is still just an unpublished document.
I've added code to citeproc-js, for use in style development, that allows CSL fields not provided on an application (Zotero) item to be parsed out of the "note" variable. It's a hack, and perhaps should be disabled by default, but it may help establish the case for particular extensions to available fields, and allow style development to proceed in advance of changes within Zotero proper.