csl for interviews, manuscripts, etc.

some general observations, and an issue or two for Simon below …

First issue is, any objection to me splitting the terms and types lists
into separate – more easily maintained – schemas?

Moving on …

Elena Razlogova wrote:

Hi Bruce and Simon–

I looked at the new CSL files here:

https://www.zotero.org/trac/ticket/632

And it looks like none of these are set up for citing archival
sources (manuscripts, letters, interviews) or even presentations. I
tried to add these to the existing CSLs, but it doesn’t seem to be
possible right now.

CSL schema does include such cs-types as “interview,” "manuscript,"
and “personal_communication”. At the same time it looks like the
schema doesn’t define “recipient,” “interviewer,” “location in
archive,” and “repository” (or whatever you wish to call these in
CSL)–all variables necessary to cite these types correctly. ("Type"
for manuscripts and letters and “Medium” for interviews are also
necessary in some cases).

http://xbiblio.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/xbiblio/csl/schema/branches/
csl.rnc?view=markup

Bruce, can you add these variables? A style that only cites books,
articles, and theses is not complete. Even Endnote can do better.

I’ve explained more than once that types are de-emphasized in CSL, and
that the core types – article, book, and chapter – serve also as
generic fallbacks.

The reason they are de-emphasized so that formatting can work for
particular types of resources even in the absence of explicit
definitions for them; e.g. so that a formatting engine does not break
when encountering the diversity of sources out there in the wild.

So with that out of the way, clearly the attributes or properties are
critical to be able to capture. So let me take one of the styles Julian
posted and see if I can find a better way (if these were in a publicly
accessible repository, I would edit them directly of course, but since
they’re not …).

Let’s focus on the chicago note example.

On the citation, I think this is wrong:

       <else-if type="chapter book">
         <group class="container" prefix=". ">
           <text term="in" text-transform="lowercase"/>
           <text variable="container-title" font-style="italic" 

prefix=" " suffix=","/>









Should only have a type of “chapter”; right?

On the bibliography:

 <layout suffix=".">
   <text macro="author" suffix="."/>
   <choose>

Good: you use a richly defined author macro that applies to all types of
resources.

Bad: is that the ONLY formatting that is so general? What about “title”?

But to solve Elena’s examples, I’d suggest we need:

  1. a “medium” variable. Already there.

  2. I can indeed add “interviewer” and “recipient”

  3. Archival documents. Here’s two examples from Chicago:

Alvin Johnson, memorandum, 1937, file 36, Horace Kellen Papers, YIYO
Institute, New York.

James Oglethorpe to the Trustees, 13 January 1733, Phillips Collection
of Egmont Manuscripts, 14200:13, University of Georgia Library.

So we’ve got:

- authors
- probably a plain text description or note (though I would store 

“memorandum” as a title ATM)
- a recipient
- dates
- locators
- collection titles
- archive and location.

[Oh, and BTW, there are online archives these days, which will become
increasingly common, so one could imagine URLs too.]

So one could do something simple like this:

   <text macro="author" suffix=" "/>
   <group>
     <text term="to" text-transform="lowercase" suffix=" "/>
     <names variable="recipient"/>
   </group>
   <text macro="title"/> <!-- perhaps here the macro falls back to 

“note”? -->


So we’re exploiting macros, and we are not using types.

With the group around recipient, IIRC, the formatting rules would say
the text “to” would only get printed if the recipient variable was
present. Is that your understanding Simon? If yes, we need to document
that in the schema.

As I’m suggesting, the title macro might well contain logic that falls
back to the note if the title is not present (though I’m avoiding media
issues here). If there’s no note, nothing gets printed (as in the second
example; unless of course, one encodes that information in the title,
which I often do).

The only thing we’re really missing above is the archive and its
location. Unless I’m missing something obvious, I guess we probably do
need to add a couple of variables. I suggest they mirror “publisher” and
"publisher-place". The obvious option is “archive.”

But is that too specific? What about those cases where, say, an
individual holds a copy of an item? That might suggest a more generic
"owner" or “holder”? Or maybe that’s orthogonal.

  1. note to Simon: I’m finding myself confused by the “page” variable. It
    sounds awkward for page ranges, and I’m not clear now how cited pages fit.

Bruce

Bruce and Simon–

Bruce, many thanks for adding “recipient” and “interviewer”

With the group around recipient, IIRC, the formatting rules would say
the text “to” would only get printed if the recipient variable was
present. Is that your understanding Simon? If yes, we need to
document
that in the schema

Yes.

a similar rule should apply to interviewer–the result should print
", interview by " only if interviewer is present

However, if there is no interviewer, the citation should still say
"interview," i.e. if interviewer is known:

Hunt, Horace [pseud.]. 1976. Interview by Ronald Schatz. Tape
recording. May 16. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission,
Harrisburg.

if interviewer is not known (which happens often enough):

Hunt, Horace [pseud.]. 1976. Interview. Tape recording. May 16.
Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.

One way this can be done without using the “interview” type is to add
"interview with" and set “, interview” to appear only if “interview
with” is present, and " by" only if “interviewer” is present.

But perhaps there is an easier way to do this.

As I’m suggesting, the title macro might well contain logic that
falls
back to the note if the title is not present (though I’m avoiding
media
issues here). If there’s no note, nothing gets printed (as in the
second
example; unless of course, one encodes that information in the title,
which I often do).

Bruce–if you include this information in the title, wouldn’t it come
out in quotation marks in the citation (which would be incorrect)?

In many cases, both the title and “note” need to be included, i.e. if
no title:

Alvin Johnson, memorandum, 1937, file 36, Horace Kallen Papers, YIVO
Institute, New York.

If with title:

Alvin Johnson, “Whatever Title,” memorandum, 1937, file 36, Horace
Kallen Papers, YIVO Institute, New York.

So ideally in CSL, “note” would follow “title” if the title exists,
and still be present if the title field is empty.

Simon–did you just map Zotero “extra” field to “note”? In this case
Zotero manusciript “type” field needs to be mapped to CSL “note”–
this may need to be resolved for correct formatting. I believe
"extra" was mapped to “note” to create annotated bibliographies–this
is not going to work if you use “note” for descriptions of
manuscripts–would a dedicated CSL attribute such as "description"
make more sense? (or another dedicated attribute for the “extra” field)

The only thing we’re really missing above is the archive and its
location.

Would you need to define a specific “locator” for archives to display
box numbers, etc. (especially if you don’t want to use cs-types to
define this? I may be missing something–but I couldn’t find anything
specific enough in this markup, to map Zotero "location in archive"
field:

Locators

157 cs-terms.locator =
158 "book"
159 | "chapter"
160 | "column"
161 | "figure"
162 | "folio"
163 | "issue"
164 | "line"
165 | "note"
166 | "opus"
167 | "page"
168 | "paragraph"
169 | "part"
170 | "section"
171 | "volume"
172 | “verse”

Unless I’m missing something obvious, I guess we probably do
need to add a couple of variables. I suggest they mirror “publisher"
and
"publisher-place”. The obvious option is "archive."
Yes

But is that too specific? What about those cases where, say, an
individual holds a copy of an item? That might suggest a more generic
"owner" or “holder”? Or maybe that’s orthogonal.

The easiest solution I think would be to put “manuscript in author’s
possession” or “manuscript in possession of John Doe” into “note” and
leave “archive” for depositories.

Elena

Elena Razlogova wrote:

Bruce and Simon–

Bruce, many thanks for adding “recipient” and “interviewer”

With the group around recipient, IIRC, the formatting rules would say
the text “to” would only get printed if the recipient variable was
present. Is that your understanding Simon? If yes, we need to document
that in the schema

Yes.

a similar rule should apply to interviewer–the result should print ",
interview by " only if interviewer is present

However, if there is no interviewer, the citation should still say
"interview," i.e. if interviewer is known:

Hunt, Horace [pseud.]. 1976. Interview by Ronald Schatz. Tape recording.
May 16. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.

if interviewer is not known (which happens often enough):

Hunt, Horace [pseud.]. 1976. Interview. Tape recording. May 16.
Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.

One way this can be done without using the “interview” type is to add
"interview with" and set “, interview” to appear only if “interview
with” is present, and " by" only if “interviewer” is present.

But perhaps there is an easier way to do this.

Maybe.

As I’m suggesting, the title macro might well contain logic that falls
back to the note if the title is not present (though I’m avoiding
media
issues here). If there’s no note, nothing gets printed (as in the
second
example; unless of course, one encodes that information in the title,
which I often do).

Bruce–if you include this information in the title, wouldn’t it come
out in quotation marks in the citation (which would be incorrect)?

No. If there’s no template for interview, the processor would fallback
to the formatting rules for a “book.”

In many cases, both the title and “note” need to be included, i.e. if no
title:

Alvin Johnson, memorandum, 1937, file 36, Horace Kallen Papers, YIVO
Institute, New York.

If with title:

Alvin Johnson, “Whatever Title,” memorandum, 1937, file 36, Horace
Kallen Papers, YIVO Institute, New York.

So ideally in CSL, “note” would follow “title” if the title exists, and
still be present if the title field is empty.

Right, which is even easier.

Simon–did you just map Zotero “extra” field to “note”? In this case
Zotero manusciript “type” field needs to be mapped to CSL “note”–this
may need to be resolved for correct formatting. I believe “extra” was
mapped to “note” to create annotated bibliographies–this is not going
to work if you use “note” for descriptions of manuscripts–would a
dedicated CSL attribute such as “description” make more sense? (or
another dedicated attribute for the “extra” field)

I’m not going to add “extra” to CSL, unless someone acn explain to me
what it means, and how it’s different than “note” (not “annote”).

The only thing we’re really missing above is the archive and its
location.

Would you need to define a specific “locator” for archives to display
box numbers, etc. (especially if you don’t want to use cs-types to
define this?

Right now, we are presuming “box”, “folder”, etc., etc. would not get
encoded in a structured way, but would be a simple string. For that
reason, I’m not sure we need a dedicated locator term?

Note: I’m honestly not clear why we have the whole list below. I think
Simon added those, and am not sure why.

I may be missing something–but I couldn’t find anything
specific enough in this markup, to map Zotero “location in archive” field:

Locators

157 cs-terms.locator =
158 "book"
159 | "chapter"
160 | "column"
161 | "figure"
162 | "folio"
163 | "issue"
164 | "line"
165 | "note"
166 | "opus"
167 | "page"
168 | "paragraph"
169 | "part"
170 | "section"
171 | "volume"
172 | “verse”

Unless I’m missing something obvious, I guess we probably do
need to add a couple of variables. I suggest they mirror “publisher"
and
"publisher-place”. The obvious option is "archive."
Yes

But is that too specific? What about those cases where, say, an
individual holds a copy of an item? That might suggest a more generic
"owner" or “holder”? Or maybe that’s orthogonal.

The easiest solution I think would be to put “manuscript in author’s
possession” or “manuscript in possession of John Doe” into “note” and
leave “archive” for depositories.

That’s fine with me.

Bruce

Bruce–

I’m not going to add “extra” to CSL, unless someone acn explain to
me what it means, and how it’s different than “note” (not “annote”).

It looks like simon mapped Zotero “type” to CSL “genre” which will do
just fine.

The only thing we’re really missing above is the archive and its
location.
Would you need to define a specific “locator” for archives to
display box numbers, etc. (especially if you don’t want to use cs-
types to define this?

Right now, we are presuming “box”, “folder”, etc., etc. would not
get encoded in a structured way, but would be a simple string. For
that reason, I’m not sure we need a dedicated locator term?

Yes, it is a string in Zotero field “location in archive,” which
right now is not mapped to anything, and the default locatorType is
"page." It doesn’t look like I can use “location in archive” in the
citation if there is no matching attribute in CSL. It does need to be
placed after the date and before the archive.

Unless I’m missing something obvious, I guess we probably do
need to add a couple of variables. I suggest they mirror
"publisher"
and
"publisher-place". The obvious option is "archive."
Yes

Could you add “archive” as an attribute?

Thank you,
Elena

moving this to the xbib dev list exclusively …

Elena Razlogova wrote:

Yes, it is a string in Zotero field “location in archive,” which
right now is not mapped to anything, and the default locatorType is
"page." It doesn’t look like I can use “location in archive” in the
citation if there is no matching attribute in CSL. It does need to be
placed after the date and before the archive.

Simon, do you have any opinions on this?

Unless I’m missing something obvious, I guess we probably do
need to add a couple of variables. I suggest they mirror
"publisher"
and
"publisher-place". The obvious option is "archive."
Yes

Could you add “archive” as an attribute?

Done (and “archive-place”).

Bruce

Alright, here’s what I’ve done for now.

$ svn log -r 356:357------------------------------------------------------------------------
r356 | bdarcus | 2007-11-12 15:04:54 -0500 (Mon, 12 Nov 2007) | 1 line

added ‘archive’ and ‘archive-place’

r357 | bdarcus | 2007-11-12 15:11:07 -0500 (Mon, 12 Nov 2007) | 1 line

added ‘archive_location’ locator

Let me know if that’s OK Simon.

Bruce

If you have a citation like (Kallen Papers, file 36), does that “file
36” get repeated in the bibliography? Is that what we’re referring to
as the location in archive? I need to think more, but it would help to
have answers to this question. My hunch is that location in archive
should be a locator, but I’m not yet sure how to implement it.

Simon

Simon Kornblith wrote:> On Nov 12, 2007, at 12:05 PM, Bruce D’Arcus wrote:

moving this to the xbib dev list exclusively …

Elena Razlogova wrote:

Yes, it is a string in Zotero field “location in archive,” which
right now is not mapped to anything, and the default locatorType is
"page." It doesn’t look like I can use “location in archive” in the
citation if there is no matching attribute in CSL. It does need to be
placed after the date and before the archive.
Simon, do you have any opinions on this?

If you have a citation like (Kallen Papers, file 36), does that “file
36” get repeated in the bibliography? Is that what we’re referring to
as the location in archive? I need to think more, but it would help to
have answers to this question. My hunch is that location in archive
should be a locator, but I’m not yet sure how to implement it.

No, the “file 36” would only go in the bibliography (or note in note
styles). It is structurally analogous to, say, a volume or issue number.

Typically you see box and/or folder numbers listed for archival documents.

Bruce

That citation comes from CMoS section 17.233, although it’s prefaced
by a warning that “manuscript collections are rarely cited in author-
date style,” so that may not mean much. If, typically, that
information only goes into the bibliography, we should probably come
up with a separate field for it instead of using the locator, which
will show up in the citation unless a conditional stops it. But, I
could use some additional clarification on this issue. The sample
footnote short forms CMoS provides look like they’re intentionally
ambiguous:

  1. R. S. Baker to House, 1 November 1919, House Papers.
  2. Thomas Causton to his wife, 12 March 1733, Egmont MSS, 14200:53.
  3. Minutes, 15 April 1795, Pennsylvania Society.

52 looks like it has the location in archive embedded in it, but the
others don’t. What’s actually used? Elena, should I keep CCing you?
Are you on the xbiblio list?

Simon

Actually, no.

In this case, file 36 is equivalent to box/folder (and should be
placed after the date and before the archive in a note):

Memorandum by Alvin Johnson, 1937, file 36, Horace Kallen Papers,
YIVO Institute, New York.

Moreover, in Note/Bibligraphy CMS (as above), only the archive would
be listed in bibliography–there wouldn’t be any reference for
individual archival sources (or box or file numbers) at all. In
bibliography you’d have:

Kallen, Horace. Papers. YIVO Institute, New York.

See CMS 17.223.

One way to do this in CSL is for the author to use Chicago Notes
without Bibliography CSL and then create a bibliography separately,
including generating a list of archives (for this Zotero needs to add
another Archival Collection item type)

I suppose, in cases where only one item from a collection has been
used (similar to the second case below), one could include the source
itself in the bibliography, although CMS doesn’t provide guidance on
this case.

In the case of Author-Date CMS, the citations seems to depend on
whether the author is using many sources from the same archive or
just one-two items:

"Manuscript collections are rarely cited in author-date style. When
they are, however, the date is usually mentioned in text, outside the
parentheses, since most collections contain items from various dates.

T: Alvin Johnson, in a memorandum prepared sometime in 1937 (Kallen
Papers, file 36), observed that . . .

R: Kallen, Horace. Papers. YIVO Institute, New York.

If only one item from a collection has been mentioned in text, the
entry may begin with the writer’s name (if known).

T: (Johnson 1937)

R: Johnson, Alvin. 1937. Memorandum. File 36. Horace Kallen Papers,
YIVO Institute, New York.

In the first case, you would only include the archive, in the second,
the entire source, with file number, is included.

Best,
Elena

Moreover, in Note/Bibligraphy CMS (as above), …

I suppose, in cases where only one item from a collection has been
used (similar to the second case below), one could include the source
itself in the bibliography, although CMS doesn’t provide guidance on
this case.

Found CMS guidance on this:

17.231 "If only one item from a collection has been mentioned in text
or in a note and is considered important enough to include in a
bibliography, the entry will begin with the item:

Dinkel, Joseph. Description of Louis Agassiz written at the request
of Elizabeth Cary Agassiz. Agassiz Papers. Houghton Library, Harvard
University."

Elena

That citation comes from CMoS section 17.233, although it’s
prefaced by a warning that “manuscript collections are rarely cited
in author-date style,” so that may not mean much. If, typically,
that information only goes into the bibliography, we should
probably come up with a separate field for it instead of using the
locator, which will show up in the citation unless a conditional
stops it. But, I could use some additional clarification on this
issue. The sample footnote short forms CMoS provides look like
they’re intentionally ambiguous:

  1. R. S. Baker to House, 1 November 1919, House Papers.
  2. Thomas Causton to his wife, 12 March 1733, Egmont MSS, 14200:53.
  3. Minutes, 15 April 1795, Pennsylvania Society.

52 looks like it has the location in archive embedded in it, but
the others don’t. What’s actually used? Elena, should I keep CCing
you? Are you on the xbiblio list?

Yes, I’m on the list now, so no need to CC me. I just sent a long
note about CMS 17.233 and also another case for Notes/Bibliography
CMS to the list.

Short citations should not include location in archive–52 is an
exception, and even if the number was omitted the citation would
still be correct.

What does it mean that the location “will show up in the citation
unless a conditional stops it”? Can you give me an example?

Thanks,
Elena

Typically, with an author-date citation, we would have something like:

...

Now, always gets printed if it
exists. We could replace this with

in which case the archive location wouldn’t get printed, but other
locators (pages, paragraphs, etc.) would. But, if the archive location
usually doesn’t belong in the citation, it would make more sense just
to specify it as a separate field.

However, if we need to decide whether to include the location in
archive in the citation and whether to cite the archive or the item
itself in the bibliography based on whether there are other items from
the same archive, it seems we need more complicated logic than this.
I’m not sure how easy it would be to put this logic into CSL (maybe
just an option or two?), but it seems like we need to be able to add
the rules:

If only one item from an archive:
Do not include locator information (box, etc.) in citation(?),
instead specifying it in the bibliography
Include item information in bibliography

If more than one item from the same archive:
Include locator information in citation
Include only one bibliography entry and exclude item-specific variables

Elena Razlogova wrote:

Simon Kornblith wrote:

moving this to the xbib dev list exclusively …

Elena Razlogova wrote:

Yes, it is a string in Zotero field “location in archive,” which
right now is not mapped to anything, and the default locatorType is
"page." It doesn’t look like I can use “location in archive” in the
citation if there is no matching attribute in CSL. It does need
to be
placed after the date and before the archive.
Simon, do you have any opinions on this?

If you have a citation like (Kallen Papers, file 36), does that “file
36” get repeated in the bibliography? Is that what we’re referring to
as the location in archive? I need to think more, but it would
help to
have answers to this question. My hunch is that location in archive
should be a locator, but I’m not yet sure how to implement it.
No, the “file 36” would only go in the bibliography (or note in note
styles). It is structurally analogous to, say, a volume or issue
number.

Typically you see box and/or folder numbers listed for archival
documents.

Actually, no.

In this case, file 36 is equivalent to box/folder (and should be
placed after the date and before the archive in a note):

When I said that a file (or really box) number is something like a
volume number, I’m not talking about how CMS says you should format it.
I mean that it refers to the location of the whole resource (the
document) within some larger collection (journal, archival collection,
etc.).

It is NOT analogous to a cited page (what I think the ALWD calls a
"point locator") which identifies the particular cited location within
the document.

So maybe we need two generic terms to describe these things: a "locator"
and a “point locator.”

Bruce

Typically, with an author-date citation, we would have something like:

...

Now, always gets printed if it
exists. We could replace this with

in which case the archive location wouldn’t get printed, but other
locators (pages, paragraphs, etc.) would. But, if the archive location
usually doesn’t belong in the citation, it would make more sense just
to specify it as a separate field.

It sounds like a “locator” is a variable that the user may enter for
an individual footnote, whereas archive location would always be the
same for a given source–in which case I agree it should be separate
field.

However, if we need to decide whether to include the location in
archive in the citation and whether to cite the archive or the item
itself in the bibliography based on whether there are other items from
the same archive, it seems we need more complicated logic than this.
I’m not sure how easy it would be to put this logic into CSL (maybe
just an option or two?), but it seems like we need to be able to add
the rules:

If only one item from an archive:
Do not include locator information (box, etc.) in citation(?),
instead specifying it in the bibliography
Include item information in bibliography

If more than one item from the same archive:
Include locator information in citation
Include only one bibliography entry and exclude item-specific
variables

On the Zotero end, I’m tempted to wait until we have a hierarchical
data model before trying to collapse items from one archive into one
bibliography entry, although it probably wouldn’t be too hard to
implement now.

Ok, I understand now. The above plan sounds great–I didn’t know you
could collapse items into one bibliography entry.

This rule would not apply to CMS note without bibliography, right? In
that style, locator information (box/folder) would always be included
in the first note, but not in subsequent notes.

Also, note that for manuscripts there is usually a page locator in
citations entered by the user, in addition to box/folder, so it may
be confusing to treat both “page” and “archive-location” as “locators.”

Elena> Simon

When I said that a file (or really box) number is something like a
volume number, I’m not talking about how CMS says you should format
it.
I mean that it refers to the location of the whole resource (the
document) within some larger collection (journal, archival collection,
etc.).

It is NOT analogous to a cited page (what I think the ALWD calls a
"point locator") which identifies the particular cited location
within
the document.

So maybe we need two generic terms to describe these things: a
"locator"
and a “point locator.”

Ok, I understand now–the formatting rules Simon described seem to
refer to the “point-locator” variety, such as page or paragraph number.

As I mention in my other message, for manuscripts there is usually a
page locator in
citations entered by the user, in addition to box/folder, so it may
be confusing to treat both “page” and “archive-location” as “locators.”

Elena> Bruce

Hi Bruce or Simon–

I know there is an elemental answer to this, but I can’t figure it out:

In Chicago Notes without Bibliography, where does one define the
subsequent short citation? I see and
sections, but nothing else. In the current style, both
and define the first long citation. How does Zotero know
how to create a short subsequent version? Do the two CMS notes styles
work in tandem somehow (Chicago with Bibliography does define the
short citation)?

Thanks,
Elena

Elena,

In Chicago Notes without Bibliography, where does one define the
subsequent short citation?

How does Zotero know
how to create a short subsequent version? Do the two CMS notes styles
work in tandem somehow (Chicago with Bibliography does define the
short citation)?

No, styles are self-contained.

Bruce