# citing lower-federal, state, and local court decisions

**URL:** <https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/citing-lower-federal-state-and-local-court-decisions/562>\
**Category:** CSL Development\
**Created:** [March 14, 2009, 6:54pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/citing-lower-federal-state-and-local-court-decisions/562 "2009-03-14T18:54:50Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Elena\_Razlogova](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Elena\_Razlogova](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Elena_Razlogova)\
**Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 6:54pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/citing-lower-federal-state-and-local-court-decisions/562/1 "2009-03-14T18:54:50Z")

</div>

Hi Bruce, Frank and others who may be working on legal styles,

I’m trying to format Chicago Manual of Style citations for lower court  
decisions, but I don’t seem to find any mappings for the court name,  
either in Zotero nor in CSL. For example, in

United States v. Dennis, 183 F. 201 (2d Cir. 1950).

“2d Cir.” goes in the “court” field in the “case” item type. But court  
is not mapped to anything. Or am I missing something?

If it should be mapped to something, what variable should it be in CSL?

Thanks,  
Elena

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\
**Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 8:28pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/citing-lower-federal-state-and-local-court-decisions/562/2 "2009-03-14T20:28:07Z")

</div>

Probably not. FWIW, here’s how I model it in bibo rdf:

[http://wiki.bibliontology.com/index.php/Examples#Legal\_Case](http://wiki.bibliontology.com/index.php/Examples#Legal_Case)

I’ll take a look at this soon. In the meantime, Frank or Andrea, you  
might take a look, given your legal backgrounds. I’m a dilettante in  
this area.

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Frank\_Bennett](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/frank_bennett/32/198_2.png) [@Frank\_Bennett](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Frank_Bennett)\
**Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 10:52pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/citing-lower-federal-state-and-local-court-decisions/562/3 "2009-03-14T22:52:48Z")

</div>

> > Hi Bruce, Frank and others who may be working on legal styles,
> > 
> > I’m trying to format Chicago Manual of Style citations for lower court  
> > decisions, but I don’t seem to find any mappings for the court name,  
> > either in Zotero nor in CSL. For example, in
> > 
> > United States v. Dennis, 183 F. 201 (2d Cir. 1950).
> > 
> > “2d Cir.” goes in the “court” field in the “case” item type. But court  
> > is not mapped to anything. Or am I missing something?

The field mappings are an area that I confess I don’t yet fully  
understand. In the first cut of work on the Bluebook style, I did a  
lot of reckless hackery to get things running, which worked as far as  
working went, but needs to be tidied up.

For the court field (which as far as I know should serve the purpose  
you want to use it for), the field exists in Zotero’s system.sql setup  
file, but if I recall correctly, it was not in the list of accessible  
fields, in csl.js. I just added it to the list in that file, which is  
not generally useful, because it means my style is not valid CSL  
(because it’s not in the spec), and it only works with a patched  
Zotero. It seems as if adding court to CSL would be a good thing.  
Zotero might be withholdinig access to the field because it isn’t in  
the CSL schema.

While we’re on the topic of database fields … here’s another  
question. Law cases are often cited by docket number. I see that  
there is a “document-number” variable in CSL, which seems right for  
this, but Zotero does not have a mapping for this field in the  
legal\_case type. Would this then be something that can be addressed  
in Zotero without further reference to CSL? This one has been on my  
mind lately, because I would like to start cleaning up the database  
schema in our local version of Zotero (our variances are preventing  
sync from working, which is a – self-inflicted – pain). If I can  
identify which communities are affected by which of our tweaks, I can  
start tidying up without creating unnecessary commotion.

Frank

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Elena\_Razlogova](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Elena\_Razlogova](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Elena_Razlogova)\
**Post date:** [March 15, 2009, 1:43am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/citing-lower-federal-state-and-local-court-decisions/562/4 "2009-03-15T01:43:38Z")

</div>

> > > Hi Bruce, Frank and others who may be working on legal styles,
> > > 
> > > I’m trying to format Chicago Manual of Style citations for lower  
> > > court  
> > > decisions, but I don’t seem to find any mappings for the court name,  
> > > either in Zotero nor in CSL. For example, in
> > > 
> > > United States v. Dennis, 183 F. 201 (2d Cir. 1950).
> > > 
> > > “2d Cir.” goes in the “court” field in the “case” item type. But  
> > > court  
> > > is not mapped to anything. Or am I missing something?
> 
> The field mappings are an area that I confess I don’t yet fully  
> understand. In the first cut of work on the Bluebook style, I did a  
> lot of reckless hackery to get things running, which worked as far as  
> working went, but needs to be tidied up.
> 
> For the court field (which as far as I know should serve the purpose  
> you want to use it for), the field exists in Zotero’s system.sql setup  
> file, but if I recall correctly, it was not in the list of accessible  
> fields, in csl.js. I just added it to the list in that file, which is  
> not generally useful, because it means my style is not valid CSL  
> (because it’s not in the spec), and it only works with a patched  
> Zotero. It seems as if adding court to CSL would be a good thing.  
> Zotero might be withholdinig access to the field because it isn’t in  
> the CSL schema.

Ok, how about adding this to CSL spec:

```
   ## the abbreviated name of the court for legal cases/court  

```

decisions  
“court”  
\>

Then I will map it in csl.js for the next release.

> While we’re on the topic of database fields … here’s another  
> question. Law cases are often cited by docket number. I see that  
> there is a “document-number” variable in CSL, which seems right for  
> this, but Zotero does not have a mapping for this field in the  
> legal\_case type. Would this then be something that can be addressed  
> in Zotero without further reference to CSL?

Yes: How about we add docketNumber to case item type, then map  
docketNumber to number in Zotero?

(Z number is already mapped to CSL number; I couldn’t find document-  
number variable in CSL but found this:

```
   ## a document number; useful for reports and such
   "number"

```

so what I propose above seems logical)

If you agree, I’ll create a ticket for Dan S. Mostly schema changes  
are scheduled for later, when hierarchical item types are implemented,  
but Dan did say at one point that it may be possible to make some  
schema changes right away:

> **[Question: local extensions to schema?](https://forums.zotero.org/discussion/5439/question-local-extensions-to-schema/#Item_10)**
>
> A quick question that may have a quicker answer. Is there a right way to make local modifications to the DB schema?

Elena

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Frank\_Bennett](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/frank_bennett/32/198_2.png) [@Frank\_Bennett](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Frank_Bennett)\
**Post date:** [March 15, 2009, 2:00am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/citing-lower-federal-state-and-local-court-decisions/562/5 "2009-03-15T02:00:10Z")

</div>

> > > > Hi Bruce, Frank and others who may be working on legal styles,
> > > > 
> > > > I’m trying to format Chicago Manual of Style citations for lower  
> > > > court  
> > > > decisions, but I don’t seem to find any mappings for the court name,  
> > > > either in Zotero nor in CSL. For example, in
> > > > 
> > > > United States v. Dennis, 183 F. 201 (2d Cir. 1950).
> > > > 
> > > > “2d Cir.” goes in the “court” field in the “case” item type. But  
> > > > court  
> > > > is not mapped to anything. Or am I missing something?
> > 
> > The field mappings are an area that I confess I don’t yet fully  
> > understand. In the first cut of work on the Bluebook style, I did a  
> > lot of reckless hackery to get things running, which worked as far as  
> > working went, but needs to be tidied up.
> > 
> > For the court field (which as far as I know should serve the purpose  
> > you want to use it for), the field exists in Zotero’s system.sql setup  
> > file, but if I recall correctly, it was not in the list of accessible  
> > fields, in csl.js. I just added it to the list in that file, which is  
> > not generally useful, because it means my style is not valid CSL  
> > (because it’s not in the spec), and it only works with a patched  
> > Zotero. It seems as if adding court to CSL would be a good thing.  
> > Zotero might be withholdinig access to the field because it isn’t in  
> > the CSL schema.
> 
> Ok, how about adding this to CSL spec:
> 
> ```
> ## the abbreviated name of the court for legal cases/court
> 
> ```
> 
> decisions  
> “court”  
> \>
> 
> Then I will map it in csl.js for the next release.

Sounds good to me. Music to my ears, in fact.

> > While we’re on the topic of database fields … here’s another  
> > question. Law cases are often cited by docket number. I see that  
> > there is a “document-number” variable in CSL, which seems right for  
> > this, but Zotero does not have a mapping for this field in the  
> > legal\_case type. Would this then be something that can be addressed  
> > in Zotero without further reference to CSL?
> 
> Yes: How about we add docketNumber to case item type, then map  
> docketNumber to number in Zotero?
> 
> (Z number is already mapped to CSL number; I couldn’t find document-  
> number variable in CSL but found this:
> 
> ```
> ## a document number; useful for reports and such
> "number"
> 
> ```
> 
> so what I propose above seems logical)

Sorry, I should have double-checked the variable name, but that’s the one.

> If you agree, I’ll create a ticket for Dan S. Mostly schema changes  
> are scheduled for later, when hierarchical item types are implemented,  
> but Dan did say at one point that it may be possible to make some  
> schema changes right away:
> 
> [Question: local extensions to schema? - Zotero Forums](http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/5439/question-local-extensions-to-schema/#Item_10)

Both changes would be welcome at this end.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\
**Post date:** [March 15, 2009, 2:17am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/citing-lower-federal-state-and-local-court-decisions/562/6 "2009-03-15T02:17:55Z")

</div>

…

> Ok, how about adding this to CSL spec:
> 
> ```
> ## the abbreviated name of the court for legal cases/court
> 
> ```
> 
> decisions  
> “court”  
> \>
> 
> Then I will map it in csl.js for the next release.

I think that’ll be fine, but can you just wait, say, 48 hours. I want  
to think about it, but haven’t found time.

> > While we’re on the topic of database fields … here’s another  
> > question. Law cases are often cited by docket number. I see that  
> > there is a “document-number” variable in CSL, which seems right for  
> > this, but Zotero does not have a mapping for this field in the  
> > legal\_case type. Would this then be something that can be addressed  
> > in Zotero without further reference to CSL?
> 
> Yes: How about we add docketNumber to case item type, then map  
> docketNumber to number in Zotero?
> 
> (Z number is already mapped to CSL number; I couldn’t find document-  
> number variable in CSL but found this:
> 
> ```
> ## a document number; useful for reports and such
> "number"
> 
> ```
> 
> so what I propose above seems logical)

Yeah, “number” is a synonym for “document number,” which a docket number is.

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Elena\_Razlogova](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Elena\_Razlogova](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Elena_Razlogova)\
**Post date:** [March 15, 2009, 7:46pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/citing-lower-federal-state-and-local-court-decisions/562/7 "2009-03-15T19:46:14Z")

</div>

> > Ok, how about adding this to CSL spec:
> > 
> > ```
> > ## the abbreviated name of the court for legal cases/court
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > decisions  
> > “court”
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > Then I will map it in csl.js for the next release.
> 
> I think that’ll be fine, but can you just wait, say, 48 hours. I want  
> to think about it, but haven’t found time.

ok

> > > While we’re on the topic of database fields … here’s another  
> > > question. Law cases are often cited by docket number. I see that  
> > > there is a “document-number” variable in CSL, which seems right for  
> > > this, but Zotero does not have a mapping for this field in the  
> > > legal\_case type. Would this then be something that can be addressed  
> > > in Zotero without further reference to CSL?
> > 
> > Yes: How about we add docketNumber to case item type, then map  
> > docketNumber to number in Zotero?
> > 
> > (Z number is already mapped to CSL number; I couldn’t find document-  
> > number variable in CSL but found this:
> > 
> > ```
> > ## a document number; useful for reports and such
> > "number"
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > so what I propose above seems logical)
> 
> Yeah, “number” is a synonym for “document number,” which a docket  
> number is.

Dan S. added this:  
[https://www.zotero.org/trac/changeset/4240](https://www.zotero.org/trac/changeset/4240)

Elena

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 12:07am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/citing-lower-federal-state-and-local-court-decisions/562/8 "2009-03-16T00:07:11Z")

</div>

OK, I’ve not had time to look into this yet, but the issue that is  
giving me pause on adding “court” to CSL is this…

I’m worried that this issue may touch on other related issues, and so  
"court" may be too specific.

I’m not sure, but it seems to me this may have relation to broader  
notions about authority or jurisdiction common across a range of  
typically legal types. For example, patents: if I have a patent  
registered in the U.S., is “U.S.” the same from a citation standpoint  
as a court is for a legal case (decision)? Or laws; the jurisdiction  
to which one applies?

So if I’m right (and as I said, I don’t know), then I’d want a more  
generic variable to cover all of these.

Frank, any insights?

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Elena\_Razlogova](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Elena\_Razlogova](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Elena_Razlogova)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 12:27am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/citing-lower-federal-state-and-local-court-decisions/562/9 "2009-03-16T00:27:38Z")

</div>

> I’m worried that this issue may touch on other related issues, and so  
> “court” may be too specific.
> 
> I’m not sure, but it seems to me this may have relation to broader  
> notions about authority or jurisdiction common across a range of  
> typically legal types. For example, patents: if I have a patent  
> registered in the U.S., is “U.S.” the same from a citation standpoint  
> as a court is for a legal case (decision)? Or laws; the jurisdiction  
> to which one applies?

The related patent issues are explained in this forum thread:

> **[Better Patent Support Needed (# in bibliography, Country in database)](https://forums.zotero.org/discussion/5780/better-patent-support-needed-in-bibliography-country-in-database/#Item_1)**
>
> Summary -- I think there may need to be some fairly major overhauls to how Zotero handles patents as references.

which led to this ticket:

[https://www.zotero.org/trac/ticket/1375](https://www.zotero.org/trac/ticket/1375)

According to the forum poster, “U.S.” denotes issuing country, but  
some styles also need to cite a more specific “issuing authority,”  
that may or may not be “COUNTRY\_NAME Patent and Trademark Office,” as  
in:

Forrester, J. W. (1956). U.S. Patent No. 2736880. Washington, D.C:  
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

So my plan was to add an issuingAuthority field.

So are you then suggesting to add something like an “authority”  
variable (Frank may come up with better name), to which both “court”  
and “issuingAuthority” would be mapped?

By the way, the patent formatting also requires a new cs-date-token,  
“filing” that is needed for the filing date in Chicago citations.  
Could we add that also?

Thank you,  
Elena

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 12:48am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/citing-lower-federal-state-and-local-court-decisions/562/10 "2009-03-16T00:48:44Z")

</div>

…

> So my plan was to add an issuingAuthority field.
> 
> So are you then suggesting to add something like an “authority”  
> variable (Frank may come up with better name), to which both “court”  
> and “issuingAuthority” would be mapped?

Yes. But I’m curious what the legal people here think.

In any case, better to start with the generic and add specificity  
later if needed.

> By the way, the patent formatting also requires a new cs-date-token,  
> “filing” that is needed for the filing date in Chicago citations.  
> Could we add that also?

Another wrinkle: court cases also have similar distinctions between  
submission/filing/hearing dates, and decision issuance dates. I’d  
just say that, as with the above, we want to make sure that we also  
cover these as well.

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Frank\_Bennett](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/frank_bennett/32/198_2.png) [@Frank\_Bennett](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Frank_Bennett)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 3:33am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/citing-lower-federal-state-and-local-court-decisions/562/11 "2009-03-16T03:33:27Z")

</div>

> …
> 
> > So my plan was to add an issuingAuthority field.
> > 
> > So are you then suggesting to add something like an “authority”  
> > variable (Frank may come up with better name), to which both “court”  
> > and “issuingAuthority” would be mapped?

I’m not an IP lawyer, so my knowledge patent citation forms and the  
like is thin at best. I spent some time this morning checking for  
instances where both an administrative authority (like a patent  
office) and a deciding authority (like a court or arbitration  
tribunal) might be needed in a single cite, and I haven’t been able to  
find one or to dream one up. I was thinking that, if the same var  
could be used for both, “authority” would be its name, so “authority  
 → issuingAuthority” and “authority → court” works as far as I can  
see.

It feels a little odd to use the same var for institutions with very  
different roles, but in practice there is quite a muddy continuum  
between executive organs and dispute resolution bodies.

A propos of nothing, one of my recent adventures in academic research  
kicked off with an Osaka tribunal sitting in 1645 that sentenced two  
merchants to death in one breath, and instituted new rules for doing  
business (legislation, effectively) in the next. Doesn’t fit in  
modern conceptual boxes very easily, but it’s safe to say that the  
common feature of that tribunal, a U.S. military court, the European  
Parliament and the Superior Court in Oroville, California is that (for  
better or for worse) they are all “authorities”.

Frank

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Elena\_Razlogova](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Elena\_Razlogova](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Elena_Razlogova)\
**Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 8:53pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/citing-lower-federal-state-and-local-court-decisions/562/12 "2009-03-17T20:53:30Z")

</div>

> > > So my plan was to add an issuingAuthority field.
> > > 
> > > So are you then suggesting to add something like an “authority”  
> > > variable (Frank may come up with better name), to which both “court”  
> > > and “issuingAuthority” would be mapped?
> 
> I’m not an IP lawyer, so my knowledge patent citation forms and the  
> like is thin at best. I spent some time this morning checking for  
> instances where both an administrative authority (like a patent  
> office) and a deciding authority (like a court or arbitration  
> tribunal) might be needed in a single cite, and I haven’t been able to  
> find one or to dream one up. I was thinking that, if the same var  
> could be used for both, “authority” would be its name, so “authority  
> → issuingAuthority” and “authority → court” works as far as I can  
> see.
> 
> It feels a little odd to use the same var for institutions with very  
> different roles, but in practice there is quite a muddy continuum  
> between executive organs and dispute resolution bodies.
> 
> A propos of nothing, one of my recent adventures in academic research  
> kicked off with an Osaka tribunal sitting in 1645 that sentenced two  
> merchants to death in one breath, and instituted new rules for doing  
> business (legislation, effectively) in the next. Doesn’t fit in  
> modern conceptual boxes very easily, but it’s safe to say that the  
> common feature of that tribunal, a U.S. military court, the European  
> Parliament and the Superior Court in Oroville, California is that (for  
> better or for worse) they are all “authorities”.

Bruce, Andrea–

What do you think? It would be great to come to a decision on this.  
Thanks,  
Elena

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\
**Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 9:45pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/citing-lower-federal-state-and-local-court-decisions/562/13 "2009-03-17T21:45:59Z")

</div>

I say we add “authority” for now, and leave open the option of later  
adding “court” if we feel we need it.

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Andrea\_Rossato1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47774/32.png) [@Andrea\_Rossato1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Andrea_Rossato1)\
**Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 6:51pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/citing-lower-federal-state-and-local-court-decisions/562/14 "2009-03-18T18:51:24Z")

</div>

I agree.

Andrea

ps: I’m working on some haskell/xml specific issues now, and some bugs  
I recently discovered in my implementation, then I’m going update the  
implementation to the latest CSL additions (we need a 1.0 version!),  
so I have no time left, but I think that adding C bindings to the  
haskell implementation should be relatively (read really) easy… a  
guy, Anton Tayanovskyy, came up, in a couple of days, with C bindings  
to pandoc, and then C# and PLT Scheme bindings to the C bindings. And  
more is to come, if I get it right. Which also means that, at the  
present time, CSL, through pandoc, could (can?) be used in C, C# and  
PLT, …

> **[ShabbyX/libpandoc](https://github.com/ShabbyX/libpandoc/tree/master)**
>
> C bindings to Pandoc, a markup converter library written in Haskell. - ShabbyX/libpandoc

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\
**Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 7:13pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/citing-lower-federal-state-and-local-court-decisions/562/15 "2009-03-18T19:13:39Z")

</div>

> ps: I’m working on some haskell/xml specific issues now, and some bugs  
> I recently discovered in my implementation, then I’m going update the  
> implementation to the latest CSL additions (we need a 1.0 version!),

I’ve been wanting to discuss figuring out how to get there for a long  
time, but it requires everyone to have time to commit to implementing  
particular changes.

FWIW, I think we’re pretty close, but that we need to address the  
issues with names and dates we recently discussed, as well as a few  
other issues.

[http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group\_id=117435&atid=678021](http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=117435&atid=678021)

> so I have no time left, but I think that adding C bindings to the  
> haskell implementation should be relatively (read really) easy… a  
> guy, Anton Tayanovskyy, came up, in a couple of days, with C bindings  
> to pandoc, and then C# and PLT Scheme bindings to the C bindings. And  
> more is to come, if I get it right. Which also means that, at the  
> present time, CSL, through pandoc, could (can?) be used in C, C# and  
> PLT, …

Cool!

I wonder if something like this could be hooked up to word-processors?

Been thinking again that we really need generic APIs at the editor  
level, and to allow plug-in processors.

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Andrea\_Rossato1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47774/32.png) [@Andrea\_Rossato1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Andrea_Rossato1)\
**Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 9:04pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/citing-lower-federal-state-and-local-court-decisions/562/16 "2009-03-19T21:04:56Z")

</div>

> > ps: I’m working on some haskell/xml specific issues now, and some bugs  
> > I recently discovered in my implementation, then I’m going update the  
> > implementation to the latest CSL additions (we need a 1.0 version!),
> 
> I’ve been wanting to discuss figuring out how to get there for a long  
> time, but it requires everyone to have time to commit to implementing  
> particular changes.
> 
> FWIW, I think we’re pretty close, but that we need to address the  
> issues with names and dates we recently discussed, as well as a few  
> other issues.
> 
> [http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group\_id=117435&atid=678021](http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=117435&atid=678021)

I think we should set some deadline. a reasonable one seems to me the  
late summer, early autumn. We could start to think about a roadmap  
(maybe you could just propose one).

> Been thinking again that we really need generic APIs at the editor  
> level, and to allow plug-in processors.

Yes, and we need a common API at the citation processing level too,  
maybe, as I think you were suggesting a thread below. But I think this  
is premature. Fist we need to have a CSL-1.0, which would be the  
target for every implementation. Then we can really start setting some  
higher level rules for the implementations.

Just my 2 cents.

Andrea

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\
**Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 9:18pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/citing-lower-federal-state-and-local-court-decisions/562/17 "2009-03-19T21:18:53Z")

</div>

…

> I think we should set some deadline. a reasonable one seems to me the  
> late summer, early autumn. We could start to think about a roadmap  
> (maybe you could just propose one).

What would we like in this roadmap, beyond tagging a 1.0 release of the schema?

> > Been thinking again that we really need generic APIs at the editor  
> > level, and to allow plug-in processors.
> 
> Yes, and we need a common API at the citation processing level too,  
> maybe, as I think you were suggesting a thread below. But I think this  
> is premature. Fist we need to have a CSL-1.0, which would be the  
> target for every implementation. Then we can really start setting some  
> higher level rules for the implementations.

I think some of this can happen in parallel though.

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Andrea\_Rossato1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47774/32.png) [@Andrea\_Rossato1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Andrea_Rossato1)\
**Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 9:40pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/citing-lower-federal-state-and-local-court-decisions/562/18 "2009-03-19T21:40:47Z")

</div>

> …
> 
> > I think we should set some deadline. a reasonable one seems to me the  
> > late summer, early autumn. We could start to think about a roadmap  
> > (maybe you could just propose one).
> 
> What would we like in this roadmap, beyond tagging a 1.0 release of the schema?

I believe that a date for the tagging would help.

> > Yes, and we need a common API at the citation processing level too,  
> > maybe, as I think you were suggesting a thread below. But I think this  
> > is premature. Fist we need to have a CSL-1.0, which would be the  
> > target for every implementation. Then we can really start setting some  
> > higher level rules for the implementations.
> 
> I think some of this can happen in parallel though.

Sure, but I have the feeling that the implementations, while generally  
usable, are still somehow immature for providing that word-processor  
level API you were talking about. Or maybe it is just me… take the  
recently added first-reference-note-number variable: that made me  
rethink about my highest level function’s type signature, which, when  
translated, means breaking, once again, almost everything. I still  
have to implement it and, thanks to this surprise I’m going to take a  
safer approach for the future… still I’m facing a major refactoring  
of significant portion of my code.

Andrea

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Andrea\_Rossato1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47774/32.png) [@Andrea\_Rossato1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Andrea_Rossato1)\
**Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 9:48pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/citing-lower-federal-state-and-local-court-decisions/562/19 "2009-03-19T21:48:18Z")

</div>

add to that the fact that we just started discussing, on the pandoc  
ML, on local modification, à la natbib… and we said we would need a  
common standard for that too.

Andrea

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Frank\_Bennett](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/frank_bennett/32/198_2.png) [@Frank\_Bennett](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Frank_Bennett)\
**Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 10:07pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/citing-lower-federal-state-and-local-court-decisions/562/20 "2009-03-19T22:07:01Z")

</div>

> …
> 
> > I think we should set some deadline. a reasonable one seems to me the  
> > late summer, early autumn. We could start to think about a roadmap  
> > (maybe you could just propose one).
> 
> What would we like in this roadmap, beyond tagging a 1.0 release of the schema?

Maybe not for 1.0, but for the do-list: multi-lingual layering, with  
sort keys for Chinese and Japanese (with options for roman or local  
phonetic ordering). I wish it weren’t so, but we won’t be able to  
deploy CSL to our university web until that’s available.

Frank

[Next page](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/citing-lower-federal-state-and-local-court-decisions/562.md?page=2)