Problem importing RefWorks data into Zotero

Karrowr
When I have a RefWorks item with the RT (Reference Type) "Journal Article" it imports correctly into Zotero with "Item type" as "Journal Article." RefWorks "RT Book, Section" imports correctly into Zotero with "Item type" as "Book, Section." But RefWorks records identified as "RT Book" or "RT Book, Edited Book, Whole" transfer to Zotero as "Item type Journal Article" with the place of publication and publisher relegated to a note "The following values have no corresponding Zotero field." If I manually change those records In Zotero to the correct "Item type Book" and add the publishing information to the resulting "book" template, everything is fine, but I can't do that for hundreds of records.
Anyone know what's happening here?
  • adamsmith
    Currently these are the RW items recognized as book in Zotero:

    "Book, Whole",
    "Book, Edited"
    Monograph

    Could we please get sample output for the other ones you mention? Which version of RW do these come from?
  • Karrowr
    Once again "Adamsmith", thanks for solving my problem. That worked perfectly. I'm actually not using RefWorks at all. I'm trying to export large numbers of ProCite records into Zotero and it seems the easiest way to do this is to prefix the ProCite fields with RF tags, Like RT, A1, T1, PP, etc. One problem I'm having, though, is knowing how, exactly RefWorks tags map into Zotero. I don't expect to have many such records, but to experiment, I created a record for a printed artwork with "RT Artwork". This shows up in Zotero as "Item type Artwork" but the size, which I had entered as "OP " ended up as an "extra" field in Zotero. But the Zotero Artwork template has a field for "Artwork size." I don't see any RefWorks tag for the size of an artwork. My source for RefWorks tags is:
    https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/RefWorks/Legacy_RefWorks/05Managing_References/020RefWorks_Tagged_Format
  • Karrowr
    Related question: I WILL have entries for maps to migrate to Zotero, and using RefWorks tag "RT Map" gets them into Zotero with the "Item type = Map" and its related fields. There IS a field for "Map Scale" but I have no idea what the RF tag for that would be. There is, however, NO field in the Zotero map format for size, which doesn't make sense. Size is a standard characteristic of any map.
  • adamsmith
    If you can read some javascript, you can probably make sense of the import translator:
    https://github.com/zotero/translators/blob/master/RefWorks Tagged.js
    Note that this is heavily based on RIS, so some of the structure and especially comments may not make a lot of sense.

    For maps, it looks like Zotero maps U1 to scale.

    I don't know much about maps, but I've looked a fairly large number of citations for maps and I'm only ever seeing scale, not size, e.g. https://libguides.wwu.edu/c.php?g=308303&p=2063297 and the USGS Survey style guide
  • Karrowr
    Thanks, Adam, the import translator was very helpful. And yes, U1 is "Scale" in Zotero.
    But I really have to say that the Map format needs at least the option of recording size. I was a map cataloger for 40 years and all the standards required a "physical description" (AACRII, ISBD-M (Maps), etc. This is from a map cataloged by the Library of Congress in 2019:
    Description: 1 map : color ; 53 x 44 cm, on sheet 62 x 46 cm, folded to 23 x 11 cm
    Believe me, such a statement is absolutely expected in a cartobibliography. In dealing with older maps, scale was never considered as important as physical description, since most old maps lacked a scale statement but all had dimensions.
    How would one go about adding such a field to the Map format? Presumably, it would be equivalent to "Artwork Size" in the Artwork format.
  • adamsmith
    The scale field doesn't particularly care what you put in it; you can just include the size in there e.g. for historical maps (for citation styles, the corresponding variable is called "dimensions", which indicates some flexibility there, too; that's incidentally what artwork size gets mapped to). The question for the data model in Zotero is if it really requires multiple fields here (I'm pretty sure, e.g., in MARC that's all in the same subfield). Adding highly detailed metadata has real costs in UI/UX terms and this isn't something that has come up much (it at all) as a request in the past.
    I'm open to be convinced, but as of now skeptical.
  • Karrowr
    Hmm. But then you'd have a record that read, for instance:
    Scale 1 map : col. ; 27 x 42 cm., fold. to 10 x 15 cm.
    Which is just wrong. And for many (certainly most MODERN maps) you'd want a scale statement as well.
    In MARC 21, scale is a note (507) while "Physical description" (eg., no. of maps, dimensions) is field 300.
    I'm not sure what you mean by "for citation styles, the corresponding variable is called 'dimensions'." Do you mean it would be possible to include a "dimensions" field in the map format?
  • bwiernik
    You can add Dimensions to Extra like this:
    Dimensions: xyz

    That will be picked up by citation styles that include that variable.

    But it’s not clear to me how you expect this information to appear in a citation.
  • adamsmith
    (Note that I said something wrong above; Scale in Zotero maps to scale in citation styles. dimensions in citation styles is separate, so you could have both in principle)
  • Karrowr
    Well, I would strongly urge that dimensions be added to the Zotero maps format. Frankly I'm amazed that this hasn't emerged as a major problem before now. I guess not many map folks use Zotero?
  • Karrowr
    If you go to the catalog of the University of Chicago Library and do a search for Title:London Format: Maps, here are the initial (brief) records for the first five items. All have the physical description field, but none shows scale. (Though a more detailed look at the records would undoubtedly show scale notes). My point is just that physical description is something that people who make and use map descriptions are used to. I don't doubt that "adding highly detailed metadata has real costs in UI/UX terms," but this seems pretty elemental to me.

    Cover Image
    London = Londres = London.
    by Geographia Ltd.
    London : Geographia, [197-?]
    1 map : col. ; 63 x 90 cm.
    Subjects: '; “...London (England) Maps....”
    Regenstein, Room 370, Map Collection G5754.L7 1970z .G4 Available for Request
    Save to Account
    Map
    Print
    Select result number 2
    2
    Cover Image
    London.
    by Geographia Ltd.
    London : Geographia Ltd., c1981/1982.
    1 map : col. ; 53 x 73 cm.
    Table of Contents: '; “...Covers central London....”
    Regenstein, Room 370, Map Collection G5754.L7 1981 .G4 Available for Request
    Save to Account
    Map
    Select result number 3
    3
    Cover Image
    London /
    by Visscher, Claes Jansz., 1586 or 1587-1652.
    London : Guildhall Library Publications, 1991.
    1 view on 2 sheets ; sheets 43 x 100 cm.
    Subjects: '; “...London (England) Aerial views Early works to 1800 Facsimiles....”
    Regenstein, Room 370, Map Collection G5754.L7A35 1616 .V5 1991 Available for Request
    Save to Account
    Map
    Print
    Select result number 4
    4
    Cover Image
    London.
    [London? : s.n., 183-?]
    1 view ; 16 x 22 cm., on sheet 20 x 26 cm.
    Table of Contents: '; “...Shows City of London and Westminster from South Bank of Thames....”
    Regenstein, Room 370, Map Collection G5754.L7A3 1830z .L6 Available for Request
    Save to Account
    Map
    Print
    Select result number 5
    5
    Cover Image
    London.
    by Falk-Verlag.
    London : Westminster Bank Limited, c[197-?]
    1 map : col. ; on sheet 59 x 84 cm.
    Subjects: '; “...London (England) Maps....”
    Regenstein, Room 370, Map Collection G5754.L7 1970z .F3 Available for Request
    Save to Account
    Map
Sign In or Register to comment.