It seems difficult to get publisher handling right under the current
schema. Using:
causes a problem if only the place is specified, but:
causes a problem if only the publisher name is specified.
In addition, it’s unclear how to deal with styles that specify that
"n.p." should be used when no place is given. One way of resolving
this issue would be to separate the individual fields, so that we
could use something to the effect of:
(This is the conditional as currently implemented in Zotero, which is
slightly different than the conditional in the schema, but is perhaps
better suited to this kind of use.)
The downside to this approach is that it would involve some
repetition, since this grouping cannot be specified in the
section. An alternative would be to allow and
within , but then consistency would suggest that we need
and in all fields, which might complicate the
schema.
Bruce and others, what do you think?
Simon
Hi Simon,
It seems difficult to get publisher handling right under the current
schema. Using:
causes a problem if only the place is specified, but:
OK, but hang on: under what conditions would this apply (other than
some bug with the data)? The formatted reference will be wrong
regardless of whether the punctuation is clean or not.
…
In addition, it’s unclear how to deal with styles that specify that
“n.p.” should be used when no place is given. One way of resolving
this issue would be to separate the individual fields, so that we
could use something to the effect of:
(This is the conditional as currently implemented in Zotero, which is
slightly different than the conditional in the schema, but is perhaps
better suited to this kind of use.)
And I sort of lost the use case for the conditional, so would be good
to clarify.
Damn I hate these sorts of styles. I don’t find it helpful from a
reader perspective, and it’s a PITA for this stuff.
Nevertheless, I guess we have to figure it out.
The downside to this approach is that it would involve some
repetition, since this grouping cannot be specified in the
section. An alternative would be to allow and
within , but then consistency would suggest that we need
and in all fields, which might complicate the
schema.
Bruce and others, what do you think?
Let me think on it some and get back to you. I’d welcome other thoughts.
Bruce
I have the same problem when a group of, say, , , and precedes the publisher data contained within parentheses. E.g:
… ed. by John Doe, trans. by Jane Doe, (New York: Harpers Press, 1997)
The comma before the parenthesis should not be there, but there could be an in-between and , which necessitates the comma.
Also, we need “verb-long” (e.g. “edited by”) and “verb-short” (e.g. “ed. by”) label forms. See the above example: it is impossible with the existing schema.----- Original Message -----
From: Simon Kornblith <@Simon_Kornblith>
Date: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:09 am
Subject: [xbiblio-devel] Publishers