New locators

CSL Development
1

Hello,
When I was checking the Dutch translations on Transifex for Zotero I
noticed some minor inconsistency with some of the translations that were
made earlier on. But I also noticed that some words could be better
translated on the CSL localization.

Right now I am discussing with Rintze about what would be the best
translation for �issue� and �edition�. That is how I came up to this
�problem�.

A lot of newspapers, magazines and journals use year/number to identify
a single finished product by the creators; which can get reproduced many
times depending on the kind of material. I argued that this could be
seen as: volume/issue. Rintze argued that �issue� should be called (in
dutch) �number�. I think there is something to say for both. So, what�s
next?

Scenario 1:
We stick to a strict explanation like the way it is written in the
specification right now:

edition
(container) edition holding the item (e.g. “>>>3<<<” when citing a
chapter in the >>>third<<< edition of a book)
issue
(container) issue holding the item (e.g. “>>>5<<<” when citing a journal
article from journal volume 2, issue >>>5<<<)
volume
(container) volume holding the item (e.g. “2” when citing a chapter from
book volume 2)

Which would also mean that the description of >>volume<< should be
altered to let it say something like it does on Wikipedia
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volume (bibliography)]: �The term is also
used as an identifier for a sequence of periodicals, generally based on
a single calendar year. However, a school magazine might start each new
volume at the beginning of the academic year, or at the beginning of
each term/semester. Thus, all issues published in the Nth term or year
will be classified under the Nth volume."

Scenario 2:
We add a new >>date<< variable called >issued-year< to make a clear
distinction between >>issued<< and >issued-year<.
We add a new >>locator<< called >number< or alter the definition of the
variable >>number<<.

What is your opinion on this?

Note, I did not write this to discuss or discredit the work of Rintze,
it is just that I think CSL can be improved by clearing this up.–
With kind regards / Met vriendelijke groeten,

Jo�l Hendriks

Traverse 68
5361 TG Grave (The Netherlands)
@Joel_Hendriks
(+31) 06-41397761

2

Can you give an example or two that demonstrate how CSL is currently
limiting you here? I’m having some trouble understanding the exact
problem you’re experiencing.

Rintze

3

I don’t know how carefully the description of variables were ever
written, so I wouldn’t parse them too closely.

For example for volume:

The term is also used as an identifier for a sequence of periodicals, generally based on a single calendar year.

has always been used like that in practice. The specs should probably
be amended to reflect that, but I’m sure there will be other examples
where variable descriptions aren’t 100% comprehensive (in
bibliographic terms, one could even argue that a volume of a journal
is a container, as that’s the way journals are bound&sorted in
libraries).

Like Rintze, I don’t yet understand the problem with the current
setting and I’m not sure how Rintze’s and your arguments about
volume/issue even contradict each other. E.g. if you look at the
English translation for “issue” it’s also “number” because that’s how
it is used in citations (e.g. Chicago Manual asks for “103, no. 2” for
the 2nd issue of the 103rd volume.

4

I wrote the descriptions for the CSL 1.0.1 schema based on my
(limited) understanding of how each variable is, or could be used.
These descriptions were never curated very carefully.

Rintze

5

Hello,

When I was checking the Dutch translations on Transifex for Zotero I
noticed some minor inconsistency with some of the translations that were
made earlier on. But I also noticed that some words could be better
translated on the CSL localization.

Right now I am discussing with Rintze about what would be the best
translation for �issue� and �edition�. That is how I came up to this
�problem�.

A lot of newspapers, magazines and journals use year/number to identify
a single finished product by the creators; which can get reproduced many
times depending on the kind of material. I argued that this could be
seen as: volume/issue. Rintze argued that �issue� should be called (in
dutch) �number�. I think there is something to say for both. So, what�s
next?

Scenario 1:
We stick to a strict explanation like the way it is written in the
specification right now:

edition
(container) edition holding the item (e.g. “>>>3<<<” when citing a
chapter in the >>>third<<< edition of a book)
issue
(container) issue holding the item (e.g. “>>>5<<<” when citing a journal
article from journal volume 2, issue >>>5<<<)
volume
(container) volume holding the item (e.g. “2” when citing a chapter from
book volume 2)

Which would also mean that the description of >>volume<< should be
altered to let it say something like it does on Wikipedia
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volume (bibliography)]: �The term is also
used as an identifier for a sequence of periodicals, generally based on
a single calendar year. However, a school magazine might start each new
volume at the beginning of the academic year, or at the beginning of
each term/semester. Thus, all issues published in the Nth term or year
will be classified under the Nth volume."

Scenario 2:
We add a new >>date<< variable called >issued-year< to make a clear
distinction between >>issued<< and >issued-year<.
We add a new >>locator<< called >number< or alter the definition of the
variable >>number<<.

What is your opinion on this?

Note, I did not write this to discuss or discredit the work of Rintze,
it is just that I think CSL can be improved by clearing this up.–
With kind regards / Met vriendelijke groeten,

Jo�l Hendriks

Traverse 68
5361 TG Grave (The Netherlands)
@Joel_Hendriks
(+31) 06-4139776

6

Three points to be considered when forging definitions for volume or issue:

Quite a few mainstream journals (JAMA) have always had two volumes per calendar year.

Quite a few quarterly journal volumes span two calendar years with the first issue being published in March or October.

For the past few years some publishers seem to have completely abandoned the traditional volume/issue/year model. Elsevier journals no longer are published with issue numbers. Volumes contain a number of articles that is similar to that of several issues in the old model. Elsevier publishes new journal volumes at irregular times within a calendar year, across calendar years, and with different numbers on volumes per year.

David Lawrence, PhD, Director
SafetyLit Foundation
4438 Ingraham Street
San Diego, CA 92109, USA
v: +1 858.391.4400 | Skype: dwl-sdca | @David_Lawrence1
www.safetylit.org

7

We should probably also observe that Dutch might be an outlier here,
since it seems to have a strong preference for the word “jaargang”,
which according to our most authoritative dictionary means “al de
afleveringen van een tijdschrift die in één jaar verschenen zijn” (all
the issues of a journal that have appeared in one year;
http://www.vandale.nl/opzoeken?pattern=jaargang&lang=nn ), which is a
narrower definition than “volume”. See also
http://www.interglot.com/dictionary/nl/en/translate/jaargang#resultsnl

Rintze

8

I’m not sure whether this is directly relevant to the original
discussion, but Scenario 2 in Joel’s mail brings to mind an extension
that I introduced into MLZ to cope with conventions in legal
publishing (and some other contexts). Here are two sample cites from
the OSCOLA guide that illustrate the basic problem:

Barrett v Enfield LBC [2001] 2 AC 550 (HL)
Barrett v Enfield LBC (1999) 49 BMLR 1 (HL)

These are cites to the case of Barret v Enfield, a case decided in the
UK House of Lords (HL). The first cite is to the official reporter,
which is grouped into sets numbered for the year of publication, with
volume numbers resetting within each year. The year in square brackets
represents the year in which the case was published.

The second cite is to the same case, reported in a commercial service
which numbers volumes sequentially from 1. The year in round brackets
is the year in which the case was decided.

Setting aside the semantic issue of whether the “2” in the first cite
should be called “volume”, “issue” or “number”, the practical problem
in rendering these citations is that the year (2001 in the first, 1999
in the second) must be rendered differently in the two types of
citation – in most of the common law world (not the US, but just
about everywhere else) square braces have this special meaning – they
signal that the year (or range of years) is a discrete unit of
publication:

http://www.catalog.group.cam.ac.uk/wps/catalogv1/images/law.jpg
http://www.lawfact.biz/aelr.JPG

To make matters even more interesting, the McGill Guide (used in
Canadian practice) requires that both the square-bracket
(publication) and round-bracket (decision) years be given where they
differ, as in the cite “Swiss Bank Corp v Air Canada (1987), [1988] 1
FC 71”.:

http://library.queensu.ca/law/lederman/legalcitation

As a minimum-impact adjustment to cope with this requirement, I
introduced a variable yearAsVolume into MLZ at the database level, and
mapped it to collection-number in CSL. This is arguably an abuse of
the collection-number variable, but so far I haven’t run into any
conflicts. It permits us to format these two cite forms correctly. It
also allows us to use the “volume” field for both the “2” in the first
cite sample above and for the “49” in the second – which is
intuitively correct, since each represents a separate physical
volume of the printed reporter.

Just in case it’s relevant. :slight_smile:

Frank