Ignoring name variable labels for sorting, subsequent author substitution

Two related issues were raised on the Zotero forums:

  1. Should name variable labels be ignored for sorting?

Previously, citeproc-js included the labels in the sort keys, which
would give results like

Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2004)
Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (eds.) (1995)

when sorting on the author macro and ascending on date of issue. The
consensus of the thread seems to be that it is preferable to ignore
the labels instead for sorting, so we would get

Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (eds.) (1995)
Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2004)

  1. Should name variable labels be ignored when applying subsequent
    author substitution?

Previously, citeproc-js would produce

Jones, Jim. 2011a. A Title. Location: Publisher.
———. 2011b. C Title. Location: Publisher.
Jones, Jim, ed. 2011c. B Title. Location: Publisher.

with subsequent-author-substitute active. The Zotero thread consensus
seems to be that it would be preferable to get

Jones, Jim. 2011a. A Title. Location: Publisher.
———. 2011b. C Title. Location: Publisher.
———, ed. 2011c. B Title. Location: Publisher.—

Unless anybody objects within the next few days to either of these
proposed changes I’ll modify the CSL specification accordingly.

Rintze

Some people use conditionals to sort items based on hard-coded cs:text
strings, e.g. to separate journal articles from books in the
bibliography.

Rintze

But mightn’t affixes and cs:text contain things meant to be
significant to the sort. I’m not sure.

For affixes I’d be inclined to say no, but as an example for non-variable
cs:text mattering, consider sort-keys constructed using text value… (as
e.g. for sorting by types).
I didn’t check if we have any on the repository, but see e.g.
http://blogs.eui.eu/zotero/sort-a-bibliography-by-type.html as well as
several forum threads.> >

I might add that besides being consensus that it’s preferable—I’d
certainly agree—, it’s also mandatory for some styles, e.g., for the
Chicago Manual’s styles.

Besides, the sorting in the second example above is not quite right:
According to CMoS 16e, it should be “listed alphabetically by title”
(15.19):

Jones, Jim. 2011a. A Title. Location: Publisher.
———, ed. 2011b. B Title. Location: Publisher.
———. 2011c. C Title. Location: Publisher.

(“15.18 The 3-em dash with edited, translated, or compiled works. The
3-em dash replaces the preceding name or names only, not an added ed.,
trans., comp., or whatever. The chronological order is maintained,
regardless of the added abbreviation.

15.19 Reference list entries with same author(s), same year. Two or
more works by the same author in the same year must be differentiated
by the addition of a, b, and so forth (regardless of whether they were
authored, edited, compiled, or translated), and are listed
alphabetically by title. Text citations consist of author and year
plus letter.”)

Finally, “compiler” is missing in CSL. Since CMoS refers to this role
throughout the manual, alongside editor and translator, it would
probably be a good idea to include it future versions of CSL.

Going back to this:

  1. Should name variable labels be ignored when applying subsequent
    author substitution?

Previously, citeproc-js would produce

Jones, Jim. 2011a. A Title. Location: Publisher.
———. 2011b. C Title. Location: Publisher.
Jones, Jim, ed. 2011c. B Title. Location: Publisher.

with subsequent-author-substitute active. The Zotero thread consensus
seems to be that it would be preferable to get

Jones, Jim. 2011a. A Title. Location: Publisher.
———. 2011b. C Title. Location: Publisher.
———, ed. 2011c. B Title. Location: Publisher.

Both to decide on the details, and also to ponder any particular
specification language, I’d go back to first principles, and logic.

The subsequent-author-substitute feature refers to author groups,
which are defined by names of the people in question; not their roles,
or any other descriptors.

Bruce

Sorry I’m coming late on this.

Rintze Zelle <@Rintze_Zelle> writes:

Two related issues were raised on the Zotero forums:

http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/25637/

  1. Should name variable labels be ignored for sorting?

Previously, citeproc-js included the labels in the sort keys, which
would give results like

Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2004)
Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (eds.) (1995)

when sorting on the author macro and ascending on date of issue. The
consensus of the thread seems to be that it is preferable to ignore
the labels instead for sorting, so we would get

Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (eds.) (1995)
Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2004)

This is perfectly achievable by just removing the label element from the
sorting macro. I do not really understand why the processor should
remove a label from a macro if this macro is used for sorting. There may
be cases in which the label is required for sorting. That’s actually the
reason for having a macro attribute for the key element – to consent
the maximum flexibility when sorting references, is it not?

  1. Should name variable labels be ignored when applying subsequent
    author substitution?

Previously, citeproc-js would produce

Jones, Jim. 2011a. A Title. Location: Publisher.
———. 2011b. C Title. Location: Publisher.
Jones, Jim, ed. 2011c. B Title. Location: Publisher.

with subsequent-author-substitute active. The Zotero thread consensus
seems to be that it would be preferable to get

Jones, Jim. 2011a. A Title. Location: Publisher.
———. 2011b. C Title. Location: Publisher.
———, ed. 2011c. B Title. Location: Publisher.

I tend to agree with the Zotero consensus and I’m actually changing the
previous way citeproc-hs was dealing with the
subsequent-author-substitute option.

Best,
Andrea

This is perfectly achievable by just removing the label element from the
sorting macro. I do not really understand why the processor should
remove a label from a macro if this macro is used for sorting. There may
be cases in which the label is required for sorting. That’s actually the
reason for having a macro attribute for the key element – to consent
the maximum flexibility when sorting references, is it not?

the reason would be a) that it simplifies things and prevents us (which,
let’s face it, means mainly Rintze and to some degree me)
from having to adjust ~700 styles and b) that I’d argue that it’s the
natural assumption made by people coding styles that aren’t testing this
particular feature so it makes CSL more intuitive.
And of course it would still be perfectly feasible to sort by author types
in a sort macro if that’s indeed needed (and if we thing about localized
styles, going by the labels seems a poor way of doing this - in English
editors come before translators, in Finnish after them? That can’t be
right).> > 2) Should name variable labels be ignored when applying subsequent