Questions from localizer

Dear CSL/XBiblio folks,

Together with Alexei (cc’ed here), we’re working on improving the CSL
1.0 locale for ru-RU, and we’re unclear about some terms. Advice on
how they should be interpreted is appreciated.

  1. When is the term “reference” used? We’re not sure what it’s supposed to mean.
  2. When is the term “cited” used?
  3. Has there been progress on the gender and CSL terms?

Our updated locale is at
https://github.com/ajlyon/zotero-bits/blob/master/locales-ru-RU.xml

Regards,

Avram

  1. When is the term “reference” used? We’re not sure what it’s supposed to
    mean.

See
http://xbiblio-devel.2463403.n2.nabble.com/Terms-reference-item-td3606425.html(“references”
was later renamed to “reference”). Maybe Frank could provide a
formatted example.

  1. When is the term “cited” used?

It’s used in quite a few styles as a prefix to the “accessed” date (see e.g.
brain.csl), so you get something like “[cited 31-01-2008]”.

  1. Has there been progress on the gender and CSL terms?


I think we can support most use cases with the solution proposed, so IMHO
it’s ready to go into the schema for CSL 1.0.1.

Rintze

  1. When is the term “reference” used? We’re not sure what it’s supposed to
    mean.

See
http://xbiblio-devel.2463403.n2.nabble.com/Terms-reference-item-td3606425.html
(“references” was later renamed to “reference”). Maybe Frank could provide a
formatted example.

I asked for this to be put in to support a specialized used case in
which references are cited explicitly in test. There’s an attempt to
explain the style requirement, and how a dynamic editing system might
cope with it, here:

http://gsl-nagoya-u.net/http/pub/citeproc-doc.html#processor-control

  1. When is the term “cited” used?

It’s used in quite a few styles as a prefix to the “accessed” date (see e.g.
brain.csl), so you get something like “[cited 31-01-2008]”.

  1. Has there been progress on the gender and CSL terms?

https://bitbucket.org/bdarcus/csl-schema/issue/29/support-gender-specific-ordinals
I think we can support most use cases with the solution proposed, so IMHO
it’s ready to go into the schema for CSL 1.0.1.

The proposal has been implemented in cteproc-js, so if there are no
major changes to the syntax, it can go into service immediately when
approved.

I should also mention that the behavior described there is available
in Pandoc with Andrea Rossato’s citeproc-hs processor.

Frank

Thanks for the explanations-- more questions below.

  1. When is the term “reference” used? We’re not sure what it’s supposed to
    See
    http://xbiblio-devel.2463403.n2.nabble.com/Terms-reference-item-td3606425.html
    (“references” was later renamed to “reference”). Maybe Frank could provide a
    formatted example.

I asked for this to be put in to support a specialized used case in
which references are cited explicitly in test. There’s an attempt to
explain the style requirement, and how a dynamic editing system might
cope with it, here:

http://gsl-nagoya-u.net/http/pub/citeproc-doc.html#processor-control

I think I have to concur with Bruce from the xbiblio thread-- this is
awfully confusing! But if I understand correctly, the term would be
used as a verb in something like (Jones 2000, references Anderson
2010) ?

I don’t see the mention of this in the citeproc-js manual, but maybe I
just don’t know what I’m looking for.

  1. When is the term “cited” used?

It’s used in quite a few styles as a prefix to the “accessed” date (see e.g.
brain.csl), so you get something like “[cited 31-01-2008]”.

How does this differ from the term “accessed”?

  1. Has there been progress on the gender and CSL terms?

https://bitbucket.org/bdarcus/csl-schema/issue/29/support-gender-specific-ordinals
I think we can support most use cases with the solution proposed, so IMHO
it’s ready to go into the schema for CSL 1.0.1.

The proposal has been implemented in cteproc-js, so if there are no
major changes to the syntax, it can go into service immediately when
approved.

Great. I suppose this will have to be discussed separately, but
Russian will need three genders.

Russian (and several other Slavic) plurals are also not simply binary
and would require more complex behavior. Not sure if this is in the
scope of 1.0.1 or on the roadmap for CSL at all, but it shouldn’t be
forgotten.

Avram2011/2/6 Frank Bennett <@Frank_Bennett>:

  1. When is the term “cited” used?

It’s used in quite a few styles as a prefix to the “accessed” date (see
e.g.

brain.csl), so you get something like “[cited 31-01-2008]”.

How does this differ from the term “accessed”?

Well, one could argue that “cited” and “accessed” have a slightly different
meaning, even though they’re used in the same context. Having a separate
term has the benefit of having translations of both.

  1. Has there been progress on the gender and CSL terms?

https://bitbucket.org/bdarcus/csl-schema/issue/29/support-gender-specific-ordinals

I think we can support most use cases with the solution proposed, so
IMHO

it’s ready to go into the schema for CSL 1.0.1.

The proposal has been implemented in cteproc-js, so if there are no
major changes to the syntax, it can go into service immediately when
approved.

Great. I suppose this will have to be discussed separately, but
Russian will need three genders.

Russian (and several other Slavic) plurals are also not simply binary
and would require more complex behavior. Not sure if this is in the
scope of 1.0.1 or on the roadmap for CSL at all, but it shouldn’t be
forgotten.

Could you discuss these requirements in this thread?:
http://xbiblio-devel.2463403.n2.nabble.com/Pluralization-of-ordinary-item-field-terms-td5727124.html#a5758509
We might be able to extend the current proposal.

Rintze

  1. When is the term “reference” used? We’re not sure what it’s supposed to
    mean.

See
http://xbiblio-devel.2463403.n2.nabble.com/Terms-reference-item-td3606425.html
(“references” was later renamed to “reference”). Maybe Frank could provide a
formatted example.

Am not sure, but I think this started from the beginning, and allowed,
for example, the heading for the bibliography to formatted by the
processor (“References” vs “Bibliography”).

Bruce

But this isn’t possible in current CSL, right? (as the cs:layout element
only extends to individual bibliographic entries)

Rintze

Well:

a) am not entirely sure I have this right

b) it’s conceivable we may add it back later

c) there’s no harm in having terms even if we don’t use them

So I probably wouldn’t want to remove it.

Bruce