I have a suggestion for adding a data type to the CSL specification.
Overview
Some
of the design goals of a bibliography system are (1) simplicity, (2)
comprehensiveness, (3) efficient encoding, and (4) adaptability to new
uses and contexts. I think that adding one more complex field type to
the CSL specification will actually improve the specification with
regard to the 4 design goals mentioned above. CSL should add a
“serial” field to encode information about serial sources. It would
apply to periodicals, magazines, newspapers, case reporters,
newsletters, academic journals, and books published in serial formats.
If adopted, the CSL-JSON would support 3 complex field types in total: Date, Person, and Serial.
Examples
Without a serial-type field, one would have to encode a serial publication (like “Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 483 U.S. 347”) in ordinary CSL fields:
Thanks. Since technically CSL is the citation style language and there is
no official input format (though obviously citeproc/CSL JSON as used by
citeproc-js is relevant), I think it’d be helpful to formulate how this
would look in actual CSL syntax. I’m not at all clear on that.
(/rant
Beyond that, I wish law folks would just get DOIs for their resources and
be done with this. This is ridiculous. I know – not going to happen and so
we’ll eventually have to solve this, but I’m having a really time
motivating myself to put effort into accomodating 19th century citation
practices. /rant)
So in the context of being generally super busy, I’m a bit overwhelmed by
the post. Thanks much for taking the time, but perhaps you can start with
first principles, and explain as briefly as possible:
What’s wrong with the current CSL formatting specification that leads you
to this solution? Perhaps an example output of what cannot now be done?
I started to read your first example, as an example, and I was not seeing
the problem you were trying to solve (unless it’s an orthogonal problem
around data representation, which is not our primary focus).
Articles published across serials such as:
Harlan F. Stone*, The Equitable Rights and Liabilities of Strangers to a
Contract (*pts. 1 & 2), 18 COLUM. L. REV. 291 (1918), 19 COLUM. L. REV.
177 (1919).
(notice the two separate journal issues&dates for a single title
Parallel legal citations
Czapinski v. St. Francis Hosp., Inc., 2000 WI 80, 236 Wis. 2d 316, 613
N.W.2d 120.
I only have an approximate understanding of this, but basicually WI80, 236
Wis 2d 316, and 613 N.W.2d 120 are three different places (“reporters”) the
case has been published and legal citation practices (cf. my rant above)
requires to list all three – hence three serials in a single citation.
Personally I think 1. is rare enough to be irrelevant. You could just cite
the above separately (as is often done) or list a date range (which CSL
already supports, even though .
2., on the other hand, is a super-common component of legal citations, so
to the extent we want to support legal citations, we have to support
parallel citations…
Frank in juris-m/csl-m does solve this differently, i.e. by automatically
"collapsing" the same case when cited in a single citation, the same way
CSL does for the same author. That’s also more in line with the data
storage model used by most upstream clients of CSL (which is one of my
major worries with Thomas’s proposal: we can put this in CSL all we want,
but if Zotero and Mendeley don’t implement a data model that can produce
this – thus making it useless to 80%+ of CSL users, what good does it do
us.)
But I’m open to be convinced that there is a compelling and feasible case
here. For me, though, the starting point would be mock-csl syntax rather
than input data.