# CSL evaluation

**URL:** <https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/csl-evaluation/658>\
**Category:** CSL Development\
**Created:** [June 13, 2009, 1:11pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/csl-evaluation/658 "2009-06-13T13:11:00Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 6\
**Page:** 1

<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:** [June 13, 2009, 1:11pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/csl-evaluation/658/1 "2009-06-13T13:11:00Z")

</div>

This has been an eventful day. I learned that I have mis-implemented  
a large and difficult section of the citeproc-js disambiguation  
routines:

[http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/7457/should-there-be-a-no-givenname-disambiguation-default-style/](http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/7457/should-there-be-a-no-givenname-disambiguation-default-style/)

That thread contrasts with the detailed discussion here:

[http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum\_name=xbiblio-devel&max\_rows=25&style=threaded&viewmonth=200903&viewday=12](http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=xbiblio-devel&max_rows=25&style=threaded&viewmonth=200903&viewday=12)

It’s good to catch this at this point, rather than discovering it  
after release, with everyone and his dog complaining about broken  
styles. But this has probably cost a month or more of design and  
coding effort, and it highlights a weakness in the current design  
process that might be fixable.

The test suite helps to remove the ambiguity from design decisions,  
but we’re not yet getting much benefit from them, because they receive  
only sparse review. We can’t look to the user community for that.  
Authors have only intermittent, even one-off exposure to a given  
style, and are often working under deadline pressure to boot. It’s  
not reasonable to look to them for review of subtle effects produced  
by particular style options.

So I’m wondering, is it possible to involve publishers themselves in  
CSL spec review? They are repeat players with respect to their own  
style, they have staff who know it cold, and they have an strong  
incentive to reduce their own costs through more efficient manuscript  
preparation. It seems like a link-up just waiting to happen.

---

<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:** [June 13, 2009, 2:07pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/csl-evaluation/658/2 "2009-06-13T14:07:04Z")

</div>

…

> So I’m wondering, is it possible to involve publishers themselves in  
> CSL spec review? They are repeat players with respect to their own  
> style, they have staff who know it cold, and they have an strong  
> incentive to reduce their own costs through more efficient manuscript  
> preparation. It seems like a link-up just waiting to happen.

Ideally, publishers would develop and host their own styles, and so  
would have an investment in the success of CSL. We’ve started to see  
that interest with small journals, but I don’t really have a clue how  
to involve larger ones. Being able to comment on the test suite  
requires a unique mix of skills, unfortunately; knowledge of XML in  
general and CSL in particular, as well as of the domain itself.

Perhaps one possibility is to use the 0.9 release as an opportunity to  
raise the public profile of this work and to solicit comments from  
organizations like Chicago, APA, etc.?

Realistically, what would that take? Probably a new, sexy (new CSS,  
logo, etc.), streamlined (ditch some of the no-longer relevant stuff  
and focus only on CSL), and rather more extensive web site. Among the  
content might be a page dedicated to the test suite, complete with  
previews and such. We also need the spec\*, and tutorial.

But I don’t think you and I alone can or should do all this. We need some help.

Bruce

- I’ve been hoping the spec can be automatically generated from the  
schema comments.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Peter\_Stoilov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/2bfe46/32.png) [@Peter\_Stoilov](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Peter_Stoilov)\
**Post date:** [June 14, 2009, 6:11pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/csl-evaluation/658/3 "2009-06-14T18:11:03Z")

</div>

Convincing journal editorial boards to review and test piece of code  
doesn’t seem very likely nor very efficient proposition. My guess will  
be that it is best to contact the people who write the online article  
submission software. From what I see a lot of biomedical journals use  
online submission systems designed by eJournalPress:

[http://www.ejpress.com/index.shtml](http://www.ejpress.com/index.shtml)

---

<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:** [June 14, 2009, 6:27pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/csl-evaluation/658/4 "2009-06-14T18:27:27Z")

</div>

Good point.

I should say that I’m unlikely personally to go through the trouble of  
contacting people on this.

Thinking grander, it’d probably make sense to consider journal needs  
in designing the online CSL Wizard I’ve been promoting. Imagine a new  
journal simply being able to choose a style from the wizard, and get  
the style they want, plus (probably a link to) human documentation.

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:** [June 14, 2009, 7:31pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/csl-evaluation/658/5 "2009-06-14T19:31:48Z")

</div>

A first step toward appealing to institutions that maintain the  
citations end of publishing standards would probably be to prepare a  
receptacle for receiving money (either a university-based center or a  
non-profit vehicle). Not that anyone is going to get rich off of  
this, but it would help to signal that CSL will persist beyond the  
enthusiasm of a few individuals.

---

<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:** [June 14, 2009, 7:50pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/csl-evaluation/658/6 "2009-06-14T19:50:48Z")

</div>

You’re not the first to mention this idea, and it makes some sense in  
the abstract. I just really don’t know what such a thing should look  
like, how to bring it about, and how to avoid a time sink.

Bruce