# Proposal: add "volume-title" as a CSL variable

**URL:** <https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/proposal-add-volume-title-as-a-csl-variable/1190>\
**Category:** CSL Development\
**Created:** [September 3, 2013, 6:27pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/proposal-add-volume-title-as-a-csl-variable/1190 "2013-09-03T18:27:35Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 14\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Nick\_Bart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/3bc359/32.png) [@Nick\_Bart](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Nick_Bart)\
**Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 6:27pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/proposal-add-volume-title-as-a-csl-variable/1190/1 "2013-09-03T18:27:35Z")

</div>

I’d like to repeat a proposal first made by adam3smith in Jan 2013 at  
[https://github.com/ajlyon/zotero-bits/issues/54](https://github.com/ajlyon/zotero-bits/issues/54), which apparently has  
not been posted on a CSL list or issue tracker before.

The proposal is to add “volume-title” as a CSL variable, intended to  
hold (a) the title of a single volume that is itself part of a  
multi-volume monograph, or (b) the title of a special issue of a  
journal.

Rationale: CMoS requires a distinction between the title of a single  
volume (CSL: “volume-title”) and the title of a multi-volume monograph  
(CSL: “title”, or “container-title” for book chapters etc.), and both  
need to be distinguished from series (CSL: “collection-title”).

adam3smith’s original post follows:\> [http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/26476/helpfeature-request-individual-volumes-as-parts-of-multivolume-works/#Item\_3](http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/26476/helpfeature-request-individual-volumes-as-parts-of-multivolume-works/#Item_3)

---

<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:** [September 4, 2013, 5:57pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/proposal-add-volume-title-as-a-csl-variable/1190/2 "2013-09-04T17:57:34Z")

</div>

background for re-posting is here:  
[http://osdir.com/ml/general/2013-09/msg04463.html](http://osdir.com/ml/general/2013-09/msg04463.html)  
I actually disagree with Bruce on the nature of the discussion on  
zotero-bits: It has a specific tag for csl changes and everyone who writes  
or helps to write the specs is active there. Before we make any spec  
changes (and certainly before we introduce new variables) we’ll write them  
up and post about them here so implementers can comment. We’d also likely  
move things over to the CSL issue tracker once work on a new version of  
specs begins (which isn’t currently the case). But until then, zotero-bits,  
inspite of its name, seems like a perfectly apt place for such details.

---

<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:** [September 4, 2013, 6:12pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/proposal-add-volume-title-as-a-csl-variable/1190/3 "2013-09-04T18:12:29Z")

</div>

But the fact remains, the zotero-bit discussion focuses on the needs  
of zotero users. By definition, it does not include other communities.

That’s all I really meant to say.

Bruce

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Avram\_Lyon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a88e4f/32.png) [@Avram\_Lyon](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Avram_Lyon)\
**Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 6:26pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/proposal-add-volume-title-as-a-csl-variable/1190/4 "2013-09-04T18:26:49Z")

</div>

I would be more than happy to transfer ownership of the zotero-bits repo to  
Zotero proper, to clean that bit of history up. It’s an accident of history  
that the issue tracker ended up being the one on my personal repo.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rintze\_Zelle](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/rintze_zelle/32/175_2.png) [@Rintze\_Zelle](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Rintze_Zelle)\
**Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 7:22pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/proposal-add-volume-title-as-a-csl-variable/1190/5 "2013-09-04T19:22:51Z")

</div>

Since zotero-bits has been entirely community-led so far (with  
community = Zotero users), I don’t see the issue in having you as the  
owner. Making it an repository of the “zotero” GitHub organization  
might proof even more confusing (and if it were to be transferred, the  
repository name should probably change to something more descriptive).  
I’d say we keep things as they are, but retire zotero-bits once the  
current issues have been dealt with.

Rintze

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Nick\_Bart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/3bc359/32.png) [@Nick\_Bart](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Nick_Bart)\
**Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 6:59am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/proposal-add-volume-title-as-a-csl-variable/1190/6 "2013-09-05T06:59:37Z")

</div>

On Wednesday, 4 September 2013 13:00:47 UTC+2, Bruce D’Arcus wrote, on  
[https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/pandoc-discuss/-SajbqoPX8k:](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/pandoc-discuss/-SajbqoPX8k:)

> Yeah, I’m saying that a journal is (should be) really a collection, as is a book series, a legal code, etc.

> But let’s move this to the CSL venues.

I dont’t actually think so. Monographs and journals are conceptually  
on the same level: they are the major independent bibliographic units,  
most bibliographic conventions dictate that their titles (and only  
their titles) are italicized, etc.

Thus, I do not see a problem in continuing to use “container-title”  
for journal titles.

Some journals do include series information, but this is conceptually  
very much unlike book series information: For journals, this is  
typically of the form “New series”, or “2nd series”, and indicates a  
subdivision of one journal, and appears immediately after the journal  
title, and in databases sometimes even as part of the title. It seems  
CSL does not have a variable for his kind of information yet. The CSL  
variable “section” comes close, but not quite.

Upshot: I do not feel existing title variables (“title”,  
“container-title”, “collection-title”) would need to be changed; it’s  
only that one that is missing so far (“volume-title”) needs to be  
added.

Variable names of course, could be reconsidered. Even “volume-title”  
is not ideal since in the context of an article it would rather mean  
“issue-title”, but for the sake of simplicity this could prabably be  
accepted.

---

<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:** [September 5, 2013, 2:58pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/proposal-add-volume-title-as-a-csl-variable/1190/7 "2013-09-05T14:58:09Z")

</div>

yeah, I’m with Nick here - using container-title for volume title is a  
_very_ uncomfortable fit.

---

<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:** [September 5, 2013, 3:35pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/proposal-add-volume-title-as-a-csl-variable/1190/8 "2013-09-05T15:35:32Z")

</div>

I’m not at this point making any particular recommendation. All I’m  
saying is that we need to step back and consider the use cases, and we  
need to do that within the context of the existing design.

If we’re talking about multi-volumed books, we have: item (book),  
volume (what is actually a collection of books), and optionally,  
series (also a collection of books, and/or book volumes). So that’s  
awkward, particularly if you consider possibility of edited books.

If we’re talking special journal issues, we have: item (article),  
issue (what I’d say is a container), and journal (a collection). I  
made a design decision, that may or may not have been conscious at the  
time, to effectively through out the issue level in terms of its  
mapping to the basic logical levels.

I don’t much like at first glance adding something quite so concrete  
and orthogonal as “volume-title.”

---

<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:** [September 5, 2013, 4:03pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/proposal-add-volume-title-as-a-csl-variable/1190/9 "2013-09-05T16:03:39Z")

</div>

So there are two parts to my proposal:

1. A volume-title variable to be used for books. As I say in the original  
proposal, this needs to be distinct from title, container-title, and  
collection-title. It is analytically in line with “volume” - in other  
words, currently the only way we describe volumes of books is by their  
number, but it’s not uncommon for citation styles to also require their  
title.
2. Using the same variable for the title of special issues. There, too, the  
only way we describe an individual item is via number(s) (the combination  
of issue and volume number) but for special issues, many citation styles  
require a title as a descriptor. Technically this is an issue title and not  
a volume-title, but it has the same logic. As for:

> If we’re talking special journal issues, we have: item (article),  
> issue (what I’d say is a container), and journal (a collection).  
> but that’s not how we’re using these terms in CSL. The journal title has  
> always been mapped to “container-title” so the journal is the container not  
> a collection. (And as per Nick, that also makes sense given bibliographic  
> conventions - a journal and a monograph are at the same level  
> bibliographically. Their titles are italicized, they get assigned a single  
> call number in libraries etc.).

I’m not wedded to calling this volume title, but what we need is a title to  
describe items that we currently only describe by numbers.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Nick\_Bart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/3bc359/32.png) [@Nick\_Bart](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Nick_Bart)\
**Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 5:57pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/proposal-add-volume-title-as-a-csl-variable/1190/10 "2013-09-08T17:57:08Z")

</div>

Fine, I’ll try to clarify a bit more:

To represent book chapters in multivolume monographs as required by  
CMoS and others, four different kinds of title variables are needed:  
title, (the proposed) volume-title, container-title, and  
collection-title.

In the following example,

```
Diener, Ed. 2009. “Cross-Cultural Correlates of Life Satisfaction and

```

Self-Esteem.” In _Culture and Well-being_, Vol. 2 of _The Collected  
Works of Ed Diener,_ 71–92. Social Indicators Research Series.  
Dordrecht: Springer.

“Cross-Cultural Correlates of Life Satisfaction and Self-Esteem” quite  
clearly is the title (of the chapter); and “Social Indicators Research  
Series” is the series title, i.e., in CSL, the collection-title. I  
would argue that the title of the multivolume monograph, _The  
Collected Works of Ed Diener_, is the container-title, and that for  
the title of the single volume, _Culture and Well-being_, a new  
variable, “volume-title” should be introduced.

Again, the name is not that important, but it should be clear that the  
introduction of one additional CSL variable simply cannot be avoided.

If anyone thinks this is not the case, I’d like to ask them to point  
out why not, and what solution they’d offer.

Now, if we agree that a new variable needs to be introduced (again, I  
maintain that’s unavoidable), deliberations I’ve seen in this thread  
on repurposing variables no longer make that much sense.

Of course, for a book, the existing three kinds of title variables are  
sufficient: title for the single-volume title, container-title for the  
title of the multivolume monograph, and collection-title for the  
series title.

And, yes, in principle, for a journal article the existing three kinds  
of title variables could also be repurposed somehow: title for the  
title of the article, container-title for the title of the special  
issue, and collection-title for the title of the journal – but I feel  
this would only create confusion. I also feel (as I said before) that  
journals and multivolume monographs are conceptually on the same level  
and that their titles thus should both be “container-title”. Finally,  
since the introduction of something like “volume-title” is necessary  
anyway, I see no reason not to simply use _this_ for the title of a  
special issue, and leave container-title for the title of the journal,  
as it has alwys been.

As to variable names, I can appreciate the idea of using abstract  
terms. In this case, however, I still feel “volume-title” might be the  
best solution. But for those who feel it should be more abstract: What  
about “component-title”?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rintze\_Zelle](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/rintze_zelle/32/175_2.png) [@Rintze\_Zelle](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Rintze_Zelle)\
**Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 1:58am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/proposal-add-volume-title-as-a-csl-variable/1190/11 "2013-09-09T01:58:39Z")

</div>

> And, yes, in principle, for a journal article the existing three kinds  
> of title variables could also be repurposed somehow: title for the  
> title of the article, container-title for the title of the special  
> issue, and collection-title for the title of the journal – but I feel  
> this would only create confusion.

Putting aside the discussion whether repurposing variables is a good  
idea, changing the use of existing variables would severely delay  
implementation. It would be a backward incompatible change, since  
practically all existing styles would have to be changed to use the  
new mapping, requiring a “big” CSL update (i.e. 1.1), for which we  
have no ETA.

> As to variable names, I can appreciate the idea of using abstract  
> terms. In this case, however, I still feel “volume-title” might be the  
> best solution. But for those who feel it should be more abstract: What  
> about “component-title”?

I’m pretty convinced by Nick and Sebastian. I’m just wondering if it  
would be preferable to introduce two new variables instead of one:  
“volume-title” and “issue-title”, which would be analogous to the  
number variables “volume” and “issue”. I don’t like the dual-purpose  
“component-title”, since we currently don’t use the term “component”  
anywhere in CSL, and it’s rather vague.

Rintze

---

<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:** [September 9, 2013, 4:19am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/proposal-add-volume-title-as-a-csl-variable/1190/12 "2013-09-09T04:19:53Z")

</div>

is there any downside to having two variables? In terms of clarity, I think  
Rintze is right that issue-title for journals and volume-title for books  
makes more sense. The main reason we want to keep variables limited is so  
that code is more modular, but issue titles and volume titles - while  
conceptually quite similar I think - get used very differently so giving  
them the same variable name wouldn’t help here.

The remaining question is whether there may be other item types the require  
something similar like a volume or an issue title. I can’t think of  
anything currently and I don’t think we have anything in our list of  
proposed changes, but if there were, that would be the case for something  
more abstract.

---

<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:** [September 9, 2013, 1:46pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/proposal-add-volume-title-as-a-csl-variable/1190/13 "2013-09-09T13:46:32Z")

</div>

The other types of, um, types, where these issues could conceivably  
show up are, and so we want to double-check, include:

legal documents (Frank?)  
(perhaps) multimedia types like broadcasts, films, etc.

If all the cases related to these types are already covered, then  
volume-title and issue-title may be the cleanest way to address this,  
per Rintze’s point.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rintze\_Zelle](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.citationstyles.org/rintze_zelle/32/175_2.png) [@Rintze\_Zelle](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Rintze_Zelle)\
**Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 1:53pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/proposal-add-volume-title-as-a-csl-variable/1190/14 "2013-09-09T13:53:53Z")

</div>

(this is slightly off-topic, but regardless of the outcome of this  
discussion, the variable descriptions in the specification can  
probably use some work. I didn’t spend too much time on these  
descriptions, and many variables predate my involvement in the CSL  
project. For some (like the “container” date variable and  
"original-author" name variable) I couldn’t even come up with a  
possible use case.)

Rintze