# Disambiguation in note styles

**URL:** <https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/disambiguation-in-note-styles/1230>\
**Category:** CSL Development\
**Created:** [June 12, 2014, 12:31am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/disambiguation-in-note-styles/1230 "2014-06-12T00:31:20Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 8\
**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 12, 2014, 12:31am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/disambiguation-in-note-styles/1230/1 "2014-06-12T00:31:20Z")

</div>

A note on some fresh developments in citeproc-js land that affect the CSL  
test suite.

In response to feedback on the MLZ Bluebook style, I put in some work in  
citeproc-js to get backreference glosses working. The form implemented for  
Bluebook support looks like this:

Smith, His Very Long Book Title (2000) [hereinafter Smith, His Book]

The tricky bits are that (a) the gloss should be applied only if there are  
subsequent back-references; and (b) the note number should be included for  
disambiguation purposes. A test that captures the behaviour is here:

[https://bitbucket.org/bdarcus/citeproc-test/src/737afd7171005f9d53cf221f8a71f21007d10386/processor-tests/humans/disambiguate\_BasedOnSubsequentFormWithBackref2.txt](https://bitbucket.org/bdarcus/citeproc-test/src/737afd7171005f9d53cf221f8a71f21007d10386/processor-tests/humans/disambiguate_BasedOnSubsequentFormWithBackref2.txt)

A question for the list is whether first-reference-note-number should  
always be included for disambiguation purposes, or whether it should be  
discretionary. In the current implementation, it is included only if  
givenname-disambiguation-rule=“by-cite” (the default). When another rule is  
used, the cite to Roe in the test fixture linked above would have the  
gloss, and the backreference would show the title.

While the name of givenname-disambiguation-rule suggests that it affects  
only given names, the general effect of the “by-cite” rule is to make  
citations as compact as possible; and dropping the gloss where is is not  
strictly necessary has that effect.

While testing the implementation, I found it necessary, in styles that use  
disambiguate=“true”, to force a rerun of disambiguation for first  
references that are moved in the document, together with all  
back-references that point to it, to assure that the document reflects the  
actual disambiguation state of each reference in the set. This change in  
behaviour affected three tests in the test suite:

> **[bdarcus / CiteProc Test - 737afd7](https://bitbucket.org/bdarcus/citeproc-test/commits/737afd7171005f9d53cf221f8a71f21007d10386)**
>
> Fix test fixture result strings to require more correct first-reference update behaviour

Finally, to control the appearance of the gloss on first references, I had  
to introduce a test condition (which I’ve added to the CSL-m schema) that  
returns true only if there are subsequent references to the item:

> <https://github.com/fbennett/schema/commit/6881c98ae752e106b9c62673c5aa42d743fc0c7b>

A condition that tests for subsequent back-references is needed to  
implement back-reference glosses, regardless of whether note numbers are  
included for disambiguation purposes.

Frank

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sebastian\_Karcher](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/sebastian_karcher/32/176_2.png) [@Sebastian\_Karcher](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Sebastian_Karcher)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2014, 1:34am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/disambiguation-in-note-styles/1230/2 "2014-06-12T01:34:12Z")

</div>

sorry, I feel like I’m missing things here.  
Why would the appearance of first-reference-note-number be contingent  
on a disambiguation preference unless it is in an if loop testing for  
disambiguation?  
Also, not all styles will have givenname disambiguation at all, so  
it’s very much possible to have a style _without_ a givenname  
disambiguation rule. Generally I’m not happy using that rule for  
anything but givennames—that’s just going to create chaos.

I’m probably missing something, but I’m going to guess that I’ve spend  
more time on this than most other, so if I don’t get it, probably a  
lot of others won’t, either. So maybe you could step back a bit and  
try to explain again why the the disambiguation rule and the  
first-note number are involved here?

---

<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 12, 2014, 3:23am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/disambiguation-in-note-styles/1230/3 "2014-06-12T03:23:17Z")

</div>

Disambiguation is just hard, and I may have mistated some things (as well  
as being unclear). Let’s take the points in order.

Disambiguation settings are a property of the disambiguation “pool” of  
which the item (not the specific cite) is a member. Members of a pool are  
those that render identically with all disambiguation settings turned off.

In the current processor version running in Zotero, ambiguity can be  
determined by comparing bare items, without regard to their position in the  
document. As a result, everything works fine.

When note numbers are included in the comparison, the relative position of  
two cites becomes relevant to the disambiguation comparison. If cites are  
in separate notes, they are always unambiguous:

1. Smith, Book A (1999)
2. Smith, Book B (2000)
3. Jones, Other Book (2014)
4. Smith, supra note 2.

In this example, we know which work by Smith is intended in note 4, because  
it points to a note that contains only one item by Smith.On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Sebastian Karcher \< @Sebastian\_Karcher\> wrote:

> sorry, I feel like I’m missing things here.  
> Why would the appearance of first-reference-note-number be contingent  
> on a disambiguation preference unless it is in an if loop testing for  
> disambiguation?

* * *

## Scenario 1

If note 2 in the example above is deleted, and the Book B reference is  
added to note 1, the title must be added to the subsequent reference:

1. Smith, Book A (1999); Smith, Book B (2000)
2. Jones, Other Book (2014)
3. Smith, Book B, supra note 1.

In the current version of the processor in Zotero, disambiguation  
evaluation is performed only when items are inserted or (entirely) removed.  
Therefore, the insertion of Book B to note 1 does not trigger reevaluation  
of disambiguation parameters, and the title (“Book B”) is not added; only  
the note number will change, as a result of rerendering the cite, with the  
same disambig parameters, using refreshed input data.

The solution in this case is to rerun disambiguation of all partners in the  
disambiguation set (i.e. the Book A and Book B items).

You are right that changes below the first reference will not affect the  
cites in note 1, in this example. Avoiding an update to first-position  
cites when it is not strictly necessary is not quite so simple as it may  
sound, however. A further example may help to illustrate.

* * *

## Scenario 1

Let’s start with the same arrangement as Scenario 1, but with a hereinafter  
gloss following the ambiguous first-reference cite, as required by some  
styles:

1. Smith, Book A (1999); Smith, Book B (2000) [hereinafter Smith, Book B]
2. Jones, Other Book (2014)
3. Smith, Book B, supra note 1.

If note 3 is edited to remove Book B, the gloss becomes unnecessary. The  
cites should look like this:

1. Smith, Book A (1999); Smith, Book B (2000)
2. Jones, Other Book (2014)
3. Ibid.

In this case, an update to note 1 is required when the Book B reference is  
removed. This is not required in the previous case, but to determine when  
it is and is not required, we must identify whether a disambiguate=“true”  
condition will be encountered when it is rerendered. Given the potential  
complexity of condition statements, the simplest way to do that is to rerun  
all cites in the pool.

There may be some scope for reducing this small overhead without breaking  
things, but it seems sensible to start with a procedure that is known to  
work.

Anyway, that’s the thinking there.

---

<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 12, 2014, 3:24am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/disambiguation-in-note-styles/1230/4 "2014-06-12T03:24:12Z")

</div>

(oops. the second example should be Scenario 2, of course.)

---

<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 12, 2014, 12:16pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/disambiguation-in-note-styles/1230/5 "2014-06-12T12:16:07Z")

</div>

> sorry, I feel like I’m missing things here.  
> Why would the appearance of first-reference-note-number be contingent  
> on a disambiguation preference unless it is in an if loop testing for  
> disambiguation?  
> Also, not all styles will have givenname disambiguation at all, so  
> it’s very much possible to have a style _without_ a givenname  
> disambiguation rule. Generally I’m not happy using that rule for  
> anything but givennames—that’s just going to create chaos.

“Chaos” is a little strong, surely; but I understand your reservation, and  
that’s why I explained the rationale for the choice: it’s certainly not  
carved in stone or anything.

Since givenname-disambiguation-rule=“by-cite” is the default behaviour, the  
default behaviour here would be to include first-reference note numbers  
when disambiguating. That would be toggled off when  
givenname-disambiguation-rule is set to some other value.

Alternatively, the setting could easily be given its own attribute. All  
that would be needed is to decide what it should be called, and what its  
default value would be. A total of nine independent repository styles use  
first-reference-note-number and perform disambiguation of some sort, so the  
set is pretty limited – mostly legal styles. From a quick look at  
available documentation, I’d say that guides are generally unclear on what  
exactly is meant by “ambiguity”, but flexibility is a good thing, so I’ll  
revise and suggest a solo attribute  
“disambiguate-on-first-reference-note-number”, with a default value of  
“false”.

> I’m probably missing something, but I’m going to guess that I’ve spend  
> more time on this than most other, so if I don’t get it, probably a  
> lot of others won’t, either. So maybe you could step back a bit and  
> try to explain again why the the disambiguation rule and the  
> first-note number are involved here?

The test case shows what the code needs to accomplish.

As CSL revisions are not an issue at the moment, I’m just posting this so  
that the details will be on file when the design cycle rolls around again.  
There isn’t any pressure to make decisions about it in the short term.

Frank

---

<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 12, 2014, 12:52pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/disambiguation-in-note-styles/1230/6 "2014-06-12T12:52:27Z")

</div>

I get confused by long messages 😉

Can we start with big picture? Please confirm the following:

1. this question is driven by the idiosyncrasies of supra referencing?\*

2. CSL doesn’t currently support supra referencing, and so this is an  
extension in MLZ?

If both are true, perhaps you should go with your suggestion (which seems  
reasonable), see how it works, and use that experience to suggest possible  
additions or changes to CSL proper?

Bruce

- I do know this is an important feature, but man I hate it; not only is it  
a PITA to implement, it’s hostile to readers (me!). One additional wrinkle  
here related to both: what’s the scope for back referencing in 600 page  
book? The book? The chapter? The page? Do you need to allow this to be  
configured? If yes, how would you even implement it. 😉

---

<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 12, 2014, 1:13pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/disambiguation-in-note-styles/1230/7 "2014-06-12T13:13:32Z")

</div>

> I get confused by long messages 😉
> 
> Can we start with big picture? Please confirm the following:
> 
> 1. this question is driven by the idiosyncrasies of supra referencing?\*

Yes.

> 1. CSL doesn’t currently support supra referencing, and so this is an  
> extension in MLZ?

It does, actually: first-reference-note-number is one of the standard CSL  
variables, from CSL 1.0:

[http://citationstyles.org/downloads/specification.html#standard-variables](http://citationstyles.org/downloads/specification.html#standard-variables)

CSL also supports the “five-footnote rule” imposed by some legal styles:

```
http://citationstyles.org/downloads/specification.html#note-distance

```

> If both are true, perhaps you should go with your suggestion (which seems  
> reasonable), see how it works, and use that experience to suggest possible  
> additions or changes to CSL proper?

Yep!

> Bruce
> 
> - I do know this is an important feature, but man I hate it; not only is  
> it a PITA to implement, it’s hostile to readers (me!). One additional  
> wrinkle here related to both: what’s the scope for back referencing in 600  
> page book? The book? The chapter? The page? Do you need to allow this to be  
> configured? If yes, how would you even implement it. 😉

It’s used almost exclusively in article-length works, scoped to the  
individual article.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sebastian\_Karcher](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/sebastian_karcher/32/176_2.png) [@Sebastian\_Karcher](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Sebastian_Karcher)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2014, 2:44pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/disambiguation-in-note-styles/1230/8 "2014-06-12T14:44:19Z")

</div>

sorry if “Chaos” sounded rough–it was just short-hand for a concern  
that it might be confusing. I think I understand the issue now and  
that makes sense. I’d much rather have that in a separate attribute,  
not just because of the naming, but also because I think  
systematically the givennname-disambiguation-rule should only apply  
when givenname disambiguation is turned on, which may or may not be  
the case in the references you’re dealing with.

Sebastian