# disambiguation, one more

**URL:** <https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/disambiguation-one-more/853>\
**Category:** CSL Development\
**Created:** [June 2, 2010, 6:18pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/disambiguation-one-more/853 "2010-06-02T18:18:28Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 10\
**Page:** 1

<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:** [June 2, 2010, 6:18pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/disambiguation-one-more/853/1 "2010-06-02T18:18:28Z")

</div>

Hi,

one more on disambiguation, because I do not understand the rationale  
behind the following test:

disambiguate\_AllNamesBaseNameCountOnFailureIfYearSuffixAvailable

Since ITEM-3 and ITEM-4 fail with disambiguate-add-names, I would then  
think that the correct result should be:

Dropsy, Edward Enteritis, X. Fever (2000); Dropsy, Ernie Enteritis, Y. Fever (2000)

and not

Dropsy, Edward Enteritis, et al. (2000); Dropsy, Ernie Enteritis, et al. (2000)

What am I missing?

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:** [June 2, 2010, 9:48pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/disambiguation-one-more/853/2 "2010-06-02T21:48:19Z")

</div>

> Hi,
> 
> one more on disambiguation, because I do not understand the rationale  
> behind the following test:
> 
> disambiguate\_AllNamesBaseNameCountOnFailureIfYearSuffixAvailable
> 
> Since ITEM-3 and ITEM-4 fail with disambiguate-add-names, I would then  
> think that the correct result should be:
> 
> Dropsy, Edward Enteritis, X. Fever (2000); Dropsy, Ernie Enteritis, Y. Fever (2000)
> 
> and not
> 
> Dropsy, Edward Enteritis, et al. (2000); Dropsy, Ernie Enteritis, et al. (2000)
> 
> What am I missing?

We’ve been here before. Does a declaratory judgement have force of  
precedent? 🙂

[http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread\_name=53208a5f0903291905n7e3904a6k6901fb0976f1f55b%40mail.gmail.com&forum\_name=xbiblio-devel](http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=53208a5f0903291905n7e3904a6k6901fb0976f1f55b%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=xbiblio-devel)

Seriously, though, this pushes beyond the limits of precision in the  
style guides. I wonder what a copy editor would say?

Frank

---

<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:** [June 3, 2010, 7:04am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/disambiguation-one-more/853/3 "2010-06-03T07:04:26Z")

</div>

> > Hi,
> > 
> > one more on disambiguation, because I do not understand the rationale  
> > behind the following test:
> > 
> > disambiguate\_AllNamesBaseNameCountOnFailureIfYearSuffixAvailable
> > 
> > Since ITEM-3 and ITEM-4 fail with disambiguate-add-names, I would then  
> > think that the correct result should be:
> > 
> > Dropsy, Edward Enteritis, X. Fever (2000); Dropsy, Ernie Enteritis, Y. Fever (2000)
> > 
> > and not
> > 
> > Dropsy, Edward Enteritis, et al. (2000); Dropsy, Ernie Enteritis, et al. (2000)
> > 
> > What am I missing?
> 
> We’ve been here before. Does a declaratory judgement have force of  
> precedent? 🙂

I belong to a civil law system and so I do not feel committed to any  
kind of stare decisis… 🙂

> [Thread: [xbiblio-devel] One last disambiguation wrinkle | XBib](http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=53208a5f0903291905n7e3904a6k6901fb0976f1f55b%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=xbiblio-devel)
> 
> Seriously, though, this pushes beyond the limits of precision in the  
> style guides. I wonder what a copy editor would say?

Yes, I remember that discussion. Still I had the feeling that the new  
disambiguate-add-names treatment (if it fails all names should be  
displayed, and, according to yesterday’s decision, this applies even  
to the successive disambiguate-add-year-suffix rule) should apply to  
this case too.

That is to say, if disambiguate-add-names fails, but the citation may  
be disambiguated with given-names, than all names should be displayed  
(without “et al.”). Then the minimum effort to disambiguate with given  
names should be used.

In other words, what is the exact meaning of the specification when it  
reads: “names that would otherwise be hidden as a result of et-al  
abbreviation are added one by one, until either the target reference  
is uniquely identified, or all names are shown”? Does this apply when  
the citation CANNOT be disambiguated with names but CAN with  
given-names (because we already decided it applies when a year-suffix  
is needed)?

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:** [June 3, 2010, 8:01am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/disambiguation-one-more/853/4 "2010-06-03T08:01:07Z")

</div>

> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > one more on disambiguation, because I do not understand the rationale  
> > > behind the following test:
> > > 
> > > disambiguate\_AllNamesBaseNameCountOnFailureIfYearSuffixAvailable
> > > 
> > > Since ITEM-3 and ITEM-4 fail with disambiguate-add-names, I would then  
> > > think that the correct result should be:
> > > 
> > > Dropsy, Edward Enteritis, X. Fever (2000); Dropsy, Ernie Enteritis, Y. Fever (2000)
> > > 
> > > and not
> > > 
> > > Dropsy, Edward Enteritis, et al. (2000); Dropsy, Ernie Enteritis, et al. (2000)
> > > 
> > > What am I missing?
> > 
> > We’ve been here before. Does a declaratory judgement have force of  
> > precedent? 🙂
> 
> I belong to a civil law system and so I do not feel committed to any  
> kind of stare decisis… 🙂
> 
> > [Thread: [xbiblio-devel] One last disambiguation wrinkle | XBib](http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=53208a5f0903291905n7e3904a6k6901fb0976f1f55b%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=xbiblio-devel)
> > 
> > Seriously, though, this pushes beyond the limits of precision in the  
> > style guides. I wonder what a copy editor would say?
> 
> Yes, I remember that discussion. Still I had the feeling that the new  
> disambiguate-add-names treatment (if it fails all names should be  
> displayed, and, according to yesterday’s decision, this applies even  
> to the successive disambiguate-add-year-suffix rule) should apply to  
> this case too.
> 
> That is to say, if disambiguate-add-names fails, but the citation may  
> be disambiguated with given-names, than all names should be displayed  
> (without “et al.”). Then the minimum effort to disambiguate with given  
> names should be used.
> 
> In other words, what is the exact meaning of the specification when it  
> reads: “names that would otherwise be hidden as a result of et-al  
> abbreviation are added one by one, until either the target reference  
> is uniquely identified, or all names are shown”? Does this apply when  
> the citation CANNOT be disambiguated with names but CAN with  
> given-names (because we already decided it applies when a year-suffix  
> is needed)?

True, it is a bit inconsistent, isn’t it, and the same reasoning (ease  
of locating the source in the reference list) applies. If the full  
list of names is retained, only one name needs to be expanded for  
disambiguation to succeed, though. I would be happy with either of  
these two results for that test case:

[1] Dropsy, Edward Enteritis, Fever (2000); Dropsy, Ernie Enteritis,  
Fever (2000)

[2] Dropsy, Enteritis, X. Fever (2000); Dropsy, Enteritis, Y. Fever (2000)

Of the two, [1] seems the most logical choice because it gives greater  
“information weight” to earlier-listed authors. It also seems to  
follow the specification description most closely. What’s your  
feeling?

Frank

Another option would be to roll back the initials on Fever in the  
Dropsy-Enteritis-Fever test case. They’re only there because that was  
the last attempted

---

<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 3, 2010, 8:16am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/disambiguation-one-more/853/5 "2010-06-03T08:16:01Z")

</div>

> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > one more on disambiguation, because I do not understand the rationale  
> > > > behind the following test:
> > > > 
> > > > disambiguate\_AllNamesBaseNameCountOnFailureIfYearSuffixAvailable
> > > > 
> > > > Since ITEM-3 and ITEM-4 fail with disambiguate-add-names, I would then  
> > > > think that the correct result should be:
> > > > 
> > > > Dropsy, Edward Enteritis, X. Fever (2000); Dropsy, Ernie Enteritis, Y. Fever (2000)
> > > > 
> > > > and not
> > > > 
> > > > Dropsy, Edward Enteritis, et al. (2000); Dropsy, Ernie Enteritis, et al. (2000)
> > > > 
> > > > What am I missing?
> > > 
> > > We’ve been here before. Does a declaratory judgement have force of  
> > > precedent? 🙂
> > 
> > I belong to a civil law system and so I do not feel committed to any  
> > kind of stare decisis… 🙂
> > 
> > > [Thread: [xbiblio-devel] One last disambiguation wrinkle | XBib](http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=53208a5f0903291905n7e3904a6k6901fb0976f1f55b%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=xbiblio-devel)
> > > 
> > > Seriously, though, this pushes beyond the limits of precision in the  
> > > style guides. I wonder what a copy editor would say?
> > 
> > Yes, I remember that discussion. Still I had the feeling that the new  
> > disambiguate-add-names treatment (if it fails all names should be  
> > displayed, and, according to yesterday’s decision, this applies even  
> > to the successive disambiguate-add-year-suffix rule) should apply to  
> > this case too.
> > 
> > That is to say, if disambiguate-add-names fails, but the citation may  
> > be disambiguated with given-names, than all names should be displayed  
> > (without “et al.”). Then the minimum effort to disambiguate with given  
> > names should be used.
> > 
> > In other words, what is the exact meaning of the specification when it  
> > reads: “names that would otherwise be hidden as a result of et-al  
> > abbreviation are added one by one, until either the target reference  
> > is uniquely identified, or all names are shown”? Does this apply when  
> > the citation CANNOT be disambiguated with names but CAN with  
> > given-names (because we already decided it applies when a year-suffix  
> > is needed)?
> 
> True, it is a bit inconsistent, isn’t it, and the same reasoning (ease  
> of locating the source in the reference list) applies. If the full  
> list of names is retained, only one name needs to be expanded for  
> disambiguation to succeed, though. I would be happy with either of  
> these two results for that test case:
> 
> [1] Dropsy, Edward Enteritis, Fever (2000); Dropsy, Ernie Enteritis,  
> Fever (2000)
> 
> [2] Dropsy, Enteritis, X. Fever (2000); Dropsy, Enteritis, Y. Fever (2000)
> 
> Of the two, [1] seems the most logical choice because it gives greater  
> “information weight” to earlier-listed authors. It also seems to  
> follow the specification description most closely. What’s your  
> feeling?

Hold that thought. The test is run with the “all-names” rule, so it  
has to be X. Fever and Y. Fever. So your preferred result is the  
right one, if we opt to retain all names. The processor should  
produce [1] if the “by-cite” rule is used (at least that would be my  
suggestion, following the reasoning above).

Andrea and I seem to be in the same space on this; if anyone has  
objections, feel free to jump in.

---

<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 3, 2010, 8:54am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/disambiguation-one-more/853/6 "2010-06-03T08:54:38Z")

</div>

> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > 
> > > > > one more on disambiguation, because I do not understand the rationale  
> > > > > behind the following test:
> > > > > 
> > > > > disambiguate\_AllNamesBaseNameCountOnFailureIfYearSuffixAvailable
> > > > > 
> > > > > Since ITEM-3 and ITEM-4 fail with disambiguate-add-names, I would then  
> > > > > think that the correct result should be:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Dropsy, Edward Enteritis, X. Fever (2000); Dropsy, Ernie Enteritis, Y. Fever (2000)
> > > > > 
> > > > > and not
> > > > > 
> > > > > Dropsy, Edward Enteritis, et al. (2000); Dropsy, Ernie Enteritis, et al. (2000)
> > > > > 
> > > > > What am I missing?
> > > > 
> > > > We’ve been here before. Does a declaratory judgement have force of  
> > > > precedent? 🙂
> > > 
> > > I belong to a civil law system and so I do not feel committed to any  
> > > kind of stare decisis… 🙂
> > > 
> > > > [Thread: [xbiblio-devel] One last disambiguation wrinkle | XBib](http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=53208a5f0903291905n7e3904a6k6901fb0976f1f55b%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=xbiblio-devel)
> > > > 
> > > > Seriously, though, this pushes beyond the limits of precision in the  
> > > > style guides. I wonder what a copy editor would say?
> > > 
> > > Yes, I remember that discussion. Still I had the feeling that the new  
> > > disambiguate-add-names treatment (if it fails all names should be  
> > > displayed, and, according to yesterday’s decision, this applies even  
> > > to the successive disambiguate-add-year-suffix rule) should apply to  
> > > this case too.
> > > 
> > > That is to say, if disambiguate-add-names fails, but the citation may  
> > > be disambiguated with given-names, than all names should be displayed  
> > > (without “et al.”). Then the minimum effort to disambiguate with given  
> > > names should be used.
> > > 
> > > In other words, what is the exact meaning of the specification when it  
> > > reads: “names that would otherwise be hidden as a result of et-al  
> > > abbreviation are added one by one, until either the target reference  
> > > is uniquely identified, or all names are shown”? Does this apply when  
> > > the citation CANNOT be disambiguated with names but CAN with  
> > > given-names (because we already decided it applies when a year-suffix  
> > > is needed)?
> > 
> > True, it is a bit inconsistent, isn’t it, and the same reasoning (ease  
> > of locating the source in the reference list) applies. If the full  
> > list of names is retained, only one name needs to be expanded for  
> > disambiguation to succeed, though. I would be happy with either of  
> > these two results for that test case:
> > 
> > [1] Dropsy, Edward Enteritis, Fever (2000); Dropsy, Ernie Enteritis,  
> > Fever (2000)
> > 
> > [2] Dropsy, Enteritis, X. Fever (2000); Dropsy, Enteritis, Y. Fever (2000)
> > 
> > Of the two, [1] seems the most logical choice because it gives greater  
> > “information weight” to earlier-listed authors. It also seems to  
> > follow the specification description most closely. What’s your  
> > feeling?
> 
> Hold that thought. The test is run with the “all-names” rule, so it  
> has to be X. Fever and Y. Fever. So your preferred result is the  
> right one, if we opt to retain all names.

Let’s reboot this, and take another look. I think the test is right  
as it stands. In fact, the test passes before all names have been  
added at the disambiguate-add-names stage.

We have works authored by the following persons:

Book A (2000) authors  
Devon Dropsy  
Edward Enteritis  
Xavier Fever

Book B (2000) authors  
Devon Dropsy  
Ernie Enteritis  
Yves Fever

We’re using the following options:  
et-al-min=“3”  
et-al-use-first=“1”  
disambiguate-add-names=“true”  
disambiguate-add-givenname=“true”  
disambiguate-add-year-suffix=“true”  
givenname-disambiguation-rule=“all-names”

So we start with one name:

Book A (2000) authors  
Dropsy

Book B (2000) authors  
Dropsy

For disambiguate-add-names, we’ll add names until the cites clear, if at all.

With “all-names” disambiguation, the base form of the names, _before_  
the cites are run through disambiguation, will be:

Book A (2000) authors  
Dropsy  
Edward Enteritis  
X. Fever

Book B (2000) authors  
Dropsy  
Ernie Enteritis  
Y. Fever

This is because, under all-names disambiguation, the _names_ must  
first be distinguished, throughout the document.

So we add one name, producing:

Book A (2000) authors  
Dropsy  
Edward Enteritis

Book B (2000) authors  
Dropsy  
Ernie Enteritis

… and the cites clear.

> The processor should  
> produce [1] if the “by-cite” rule is used (at least that would be my  
> suggestion, following the reasoning above).

There are other issues with “by-cite”. Sorry for raising it here;  
let’s hold that one for later, and a separate thread. But this test  
result is correct as written, I think.

Sorry for the confused early response; it took me awhile to get back  
into the zone.

Frank

---

<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:** [June 3, 2010, 1:17pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/disambiguation-one-more/853/7 "2010-06-03T13:17:49Z")

</div>

This seems a clear rule: before adding names to an “et-al” citation  
the name must be first disambiguated if the add-given-name is set.

I will have to change to code significantly, even though the job  
should not be hard, since this basically changes the disambiguation  
algorithm. I have the feeling this could have some side-effect I’m not  
grasping yet, though. But I could be plainly wrong. I’m also wondering  
whether this is actually consistent with the wording of the  
specification.

I’m working on the by-cite implementation (which is just a special  
case of the given-name disambiguation routine), so I will see what  
happens.

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:** [June 3, 2010, 3:09pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/disambiguation-one-more/853/8 "2010-06-03T15:09:28Z")

</div>

This is meant to explain the document-wide discrimination of names.  
Seems clear, maybe it can be improved:On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 10:17 PM, Andrea Rossato \<@Andrea\_Rossato1\> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 05:54:38PM +0900, Frank Bennett wrote:
> 
> > This is because, under all-names disambiguation, the _names_ must  
> > first be distinguished, throughout the document.
> > 
> > So we add one name, producing:
> > 
> > Book A (2000) authors  
> > Dropsy  
> > Edward Enteritis
> > 
> > Book B (2000) authors  
> > Dropsy  
> > Ernie Enteritis
> > 
> > … and the cites clear.
> 
> This seems a clear rule: before adding names to an “et-al” citation  
> the name must be first disambiguated if the add-given-name is set.
> 
> I will have to change to code significantly, even though the job  
> should not be hard, since this basically changes the disambiguation  
> algorithm. I have the feeling this could have some side-effect I’m not  
> grasping yet, though. But I could be plainly wrong. I’m also wondering  
> whether this is actually consistent with the wording of the  
> specification.

* * *

The scope of names transformation

With a value of “all-names”, “all-names-with-initials”,  
“primary-name”, or “primary-name-with-initials”, disambiguation is  
performed for all relevant names, without regard to ambiguity in  
individual cites. Transformations governed by these rules apply to all  
cites throughout the document. Disambiguation of cites is in this case  
incidental to the disambiguation of names.

* * *

This explains the specific effect of “all-names”:

* * *

“all-names”  
The default value. If a name is rendered the same in different  
cites (e.g. “Doe 2000” and “Doe 2001”), the name is progressively  
transformed until it can be distinguished from the others (e.g. “A.  
Doe 2000” and “B. Doe 2001”), or until the transformation steps are  
exhausted.

* * *

Do you find the reference to “cites” misleading? Or would you suggest  
other amendments?

---

<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:** [June 3, 2010, 8:29pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/disambiguation-one-more/853/9 "2010-06-03T20:29:59Z")

</div>

> > > This is because, under all-names disambiguation, the _names_ must  
> > > first be distinguished, throughout the document.
> > 
> > This seems a clear rule: before adding names to an “et-al” citation  
> > the name must be first disambiguated if the add-given-name is set.  
> > […]  
> > I’m also wondering whether this is actually consistent with the  
> > wording of the specification.
> 
> This is meant to explain the document-wide discrimination of names.  
> Seems clear, maybe it can be improved:  
> [cut]  
> Do you find the reference to “cites” misleading? Or would you suggest  
> other amendments?

I actually find the add-givenname rule description perfectly clear.  
What may be misleading is the fact that, in a five-step procedure, you  
ask me to perform step 2 and 3 while executing step 1.

I agree that this leads to the best possible result, but I wonder if  
the five-step description of the disambiguation algorithm is helpful  
for an implementer. I’ve been misled.

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:** [June 3, 2010, 8:49pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/disambiguation-one-more/853/10 "2010-06-03T20:49:31Z")

</div>

> > > > This is because, under all-names disambiguation, the _names_ must  
> > > > first be distinguished, throughout the document.
> > > 
> > > This seems a clear rule: before adding names to an “et-al” citation  
> > > the name must be first disambiguated if the add-given-name is set.  
> > > […]  
> > > I’m also wondering whether this is actually consistent with the  
> > > wording of the specification.
> > 
> > This is meant to explain the document-wide discrimination of names.  
> > Seems clear, maybe it can be improved:  
> > [cut]  
> > Do you find the reference to “cites” misleading? Or would you suggest  
> > other amendments?
> 
> I actually find the add-givenname rule description perfectly clear.  
> What may be misleading is the fact that, in a five-step procedure, you  
> ask me to perform step 2 and 3 while executing step 1.
> 
> I agree that this leads to the best possible result, but I wonder if  
> the five-step description of the disambiguation algorithm is helpful  
> for an implementer. I’ve been misled.

I’ll take another look at the language.