# Item type and field mappings

**URL:** <https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/item-type-and-field-mappings/843>\
**Category:** CSL Development\
**Created:** [May 7, 2010, 1:01am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/item-type-and-field-mappings/843 "2010-05-07T01:01:20Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**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:** [May 7, 2010, 1:01am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/item-type-and-field-mappings/843/1 "2010-05-07T01:01:20Z")

</div>

For the general deployment of CSL processors, some guidelines for  
processor input seem to be in order. As a starting point, I’ve  
extracted mapping tables for the current setup in Zotero:

[http://gsl-nagoya-u.net/http/pub/csl-fields/](http://gsl-nagoya-u.net/http/pub/csl-fields/)

One item turned up by the tables is that the “place” field in Zotero  
currently maps to two CSL variables: event-place and publisher-place,  
with identical values. As this affects the behavior of CSL itself  
(i.e. testing for presence of only one of the CSL variables without  
the other will always fail), it seems that CSL should specify, at  
least, that a field held by the calling application should not be  
delivered to multiple CSL variables.

Legal support is also in obvious need of care and feeding. I would  
like to contribute here, and there are people I can call upon to help,  
but until we have a process in place for proposing, vetting and  
documenting recommendations, and commitment for populating CSL  
recommendations through to Zotero and other calling applications, I’m  
not sure how to begin …

Any thoughts?

Frank