On the schema revisions, a minor comment for the moment (I’ve not had
time to look over in detail):
> "publisher"
> "published-place"
> "address"
I’d prefer if we dropped the last of the above, and changed
"published-place" to “publisher-place.”
The reason is that I want by convention for the hyphen to suggest a
related item. So “publisher” is in fact a short-hand for “publisher-name”.
Likewise, I think we need to add “event” and “event-place” (for hearing,
conferences, and so forth).
Bruce
Simon Kornblith wrote:> On Jul 22, 2007, at 7:25 PM, Bruce D’Arcus wrote:
On the schema revisions, a minor comment for the moment (I’ve not had
time to look over in detail):
> "publisher"
> "published-place"
> "address"
I’d prefer if we dropped the last of the above, and changed
“published-place” to “publisher-place.”
The reason is that I want by convention for the hyphen to suggest a
related item. So “publisher” is in fact a short-hand for “publisher-
name”.
What variable would replace then? Using
“publisher-date” seems strange.
I don’t really have a problem with date “published” (seems a separate
issue), except for the fact that it might be misleading (what about
things that aren’t really published? Or those where a cover or copyright
date are different than the issue date, but are in fact primary for the
citation?).
Bruce
Maybe have date “primary” and date “published,” which, most of the
time, will be the same? This takes care of these issues, without
requiring redundant conditionals in every style. Without it, I don’t
see how we can fully resolve the latter case, since a citation might
contain both the (primary) issue date and the date published.
We would, of course, want a mapping between “primary” and some other
date variable, for all CSL types. In most cases, it will simply map
to “published,” but maybe for patents, etc. it is something
different. I’d rather have this explicitly specified than leave it up
to the parser.
Simon
Simon Kornblith wrote:
Maybe have date “primary” and date “published,” which, most of the
time, will be the same?
Maybe, though I’d lean towards using the somewhat broader “issued” in
place of “published.”
This takes care of these issues, without
requiring redundant conditionals in every style. Without it, I don’t
see how we can fully resolve the latter case, since a citation might
contain both the (primary) issue date and the date published.
We would, of course, want a mapping between “primary” and some other
date variable, for all CSL types. In most cases, it will simply map
to “published,” but maybe for patents, etc. it is something
different. I’d rather have this explicitly specified than leave it up
to the parser.
Legal cases can also have multiple dates.
I don’t know; I guess we could go with your suggestion and see how it goes.
Bruce