adding terms for recipient/interviewer

For letters/interviews support, can we add the following terms:

 <!-- LONG ROLE FORMS -->


to
interview by

This seems to be logical, except I’m not sure that these should be
added to “long role forms”–is that correct?

Then, to allow for the case when there is no interviewer, and for the
short citation, which doesn’t need the interviewer’s last name but
does need the word “interview”, can we also add this:

 <term name="interview">interview</term>

This seems awkward, but I can’t come up with another simple solution.

The code will the look like this (seems to work fine in csedit.xul):

The result looks like this:

Hedges, interview; Hoey to Sevareid, September 2, 1942.

If this is acceptable, I can send a patch to Simon to commit. If not,
let me know what would be the alternative.

Thanks,
Elena

Elena Razlogova wrote:

For letters/interviews support, can we add the following terms:

Done. However …

 <!-- LONG ROLE FORMS -->


to
interview by

This seems to be logical, except I’m not sure that these should be
added to “long role forms”–is that correct?

… this would be a “verb” form (“long” would be, for example,
“interviewer”).

The “to” seems like it might be a problem, but I’ve added it to the
english locale.

Then, to allow for the case when there is no interviewer, and for the
short citation, which doesn’t need the interviewer’s last name but
does need the word “interview”, can we also add this:

 <term name="interview">interview</term>

This seems awkward, but I can’t come up with another simple solution.

This is a tricky issue. Until now, we’ve not touched this area,
suggesting to use “genre” IIRC, where the implementation provides the
suitable string. I’m open to going down this road, but we need to weigh
the pros and cons.

Bruce

 <!-- LONG ROLE FORMS -->


to
interview by

This seems to be logical, except I’m not sure that these should be
added to “long role forms”–is that correct?

… this would be a “verb” form (“long” would be, for example,
“interviewer”).

I’m fine with putting it under “verb” but it is actually not
"interviewed by" but “interview by,” as in

Benjamin Spock, interview by Milton J. E. Senn, November 20, 1974,
interview 67A, transcript, Senn Oral History Collection, National
Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD.

The “to” seems like it might be a problem, but I’ve added it to the
english locale.

Then, to allow for the case when there is no interviewer, and for the
short citation, which doesn’t need the interviewer’s last name but
does need the word “interview”, can we also add this:

 <term name="interview">interview</term>

This seems awkward, but I can’t come up with another simple solution.

This is a tricky issue. Until now, we’ve not touched this area,
suggesting to use “genre” IIRC, where the implementation provides the
suitable string. I’m open to going down this road, but we need to
weigh
the pros and cons.

For the interview, I actually mapped Zotero “medium” to “genre” (in
addition to Zotero “type”) to add it to the citation–is that wrong?
I don’t believe there is ever a case when an item would have both
"type" and “medium”. Would you agree? If not, then perhaps we need to
add a “medium” attribute.

This brings up another issue: What do we do with
"personal_communication" in general? How do we distinguish between a
Zotero letter and an e-mail types if they are both
"personal_communication" and there is no “genre” string to
distinguish one from the other? I really think
"personal_communication" is way too broad for proper formatting:

Creel, George. Letter to Colonel House. September 25, 1918. Edward M.
House Papers. Yale University Library.

Conlon, Constance. E-mail to author. April 17, 2000.

Elena

 <!-- LONG ROLE FORMS -->


to
interview by

This seems to be logical, except I’m not sure that these should be
added to “long role forms”–is that correct?

… this would be a “verb” form (“long” would be, for example,
“interviewer”).

I’m fine with putting it under “verb” but it is actually not
"interviewed by" but “interview by,” as in

I’ll change it when I get a chance.

For the interview, I actually mapped Zotero “medium” to “genre” (in
addition to Zotero “type”) to add it to the citation–is that wrong?
I don’t believe there is ever a case when an item would have both
"type" and “medium”. Would you agree? If not, then perhaps we need to
add a “medium” attribute.

CSL has both “medium” and “genre” (which might be better as “type”; don’t know).

This brings up another issue: What do we do with
"personal_communication" in general? How do we distinguish between a
Zotero letter and an e-mail types if they are both
"personal_communication" and there is no “genre” string to
distinguish one from the other? I really think
"personal_communication" is way too broad for proper formatting:

So does that mean we have to include ridiculous types like IMs andt
text messages?

Creel, George. Letter to Colonel House. September 25, 1918. Edward M.
House Papers. Yale University Library.

Conlon, Constance. E-mail to author. April 17, 2000.

The formatting is the same; the second just includes archive info.

[author][type/genre] to [recipient][date]

Bruce

CSL has both “medium” and “genre” (which might be better as “type”;
don’t know).

cool

This brings up another issue: What do we do with
"personal_communication" in general? How do we distinguish between a
Zotero letter and an e-mail types if they are both
"personal_communication" and there is no “genre” string to
distinguish one from the other? I really think
"personal_communication" is way too broad for proper formatting:

So does that mean we have to include ridiculous types like IMs andt
text messages?

Creel, George. Letter to Colonel House. September 25, 1918. Edward M.
House Papers. Yale University Library.

Conlon, Constance. E-mail to author. April 17, 2000.

The formatting is the same; the second just includes archive info.

[author][type/genre] to [recipient][date]

perhaps this can be solved on zotero end then.

elena