subsequent-samenote: Subsequent cites within a single note

In Bluebook, “supra” is used for subsequent references to a source,
where the conditions for “id” (ibid for lawyers) are not satisfied.
The form for using supra differs depending on whether or not the first
reference to the work is inside the same note. In the latter case,
the note number is (of course) omitted. Here are examples of the two
forms:

*** Case 1 ***

(1) Robert M. Cover, Justice Accused 19 (1975); Charles Dickens, Bleak
House (Norman Page ed., Penguin Books 1971) (1853). Cover
specifically refers to Dickens’ criticisms of English procedure.
Cover, supra at 999.

*** Case 2 ***

(1) Robert M. Cover, Justice Accused 19 (1975).

(2) Charles Dickens, Bleak House (Norman Page ed., Penguin Books 1971)
(1853).

(3) Cover, supra note 1, at 23.

I have modified our local Zotero to enable multiple references to the
same source in a single note (this is also permitted by CMS @ 16.48,
so enabling it seems desirable). So far, so good, but I also need a
means of identifying whether the back reference is Case 2, or the
newly available Case 1.

For a trial implementation, it was a simple thing to extend the ibid,
ibid-with-locator, subsequent mechanism:

  list { ("first"
       > "subsequent"
       > "subsequent-samenote"
       > "ibid"
       > "ibid-with-locator")+ }

(The corresponding change in Zotero is backward compatible.)

Bluebook does need this facility, so I would like to propose it as an
amendment to the CSL schema.

Frank

I’ve had a rethink about this in connection with another issue. More below …

In Bluebook, “supra” is used for subsequent references to a source,
where the conditions for “id” (ibid for lawyers) are not satisfied.
The form for using supra differs depending on whether or not the first
reference to the work is inside the same note. In the latter case,
the note number is (of course) omitted. Here are examples of the two
forms:

*** Case 1 ***

(1) Robert M. Cover, Justice Accused 19 (1975); Charles Dickens, Bleak
House (Norman Page ed., Penguin Books 1971) (1853). Cover
specifically refers to Dickens’ criticisms of English procedure.
Cover, supra at 999.

*** Case 2 ***

(1) Robert M. Cover, Justice Accused 19 (1975).

(2) Charles Dickens, Bleak House (Norman Page ed., Penguin Books 1971)
(1853).

(3) Cover, supra note 1, at 23.

I have modified our local Zotero to enable multiple references to the
same source in a single note (this is also permitted by CMS @ 16.48,
so enabling it seems desirable). So far, so good, but I also need a
means of identifying whether the back reference is Case 2, or the
newly available Case 1.

For a trial implementation, it was a simple thing to extend the ibid,
ibid-with-locator, subsequent mechanism:

 list { ("first"
      > "subsequent"
      > "subsequent-samenote"
      > "ibid"
      > "ibid-with-locator")+ }

This actually isn’t all that happy as a solution, is it.
Ibid/subsequent turns on the simple idea of a linear citation stream,
and the location (within the same note or elsewhere) is a different
thing. There is a second issue that I’ll have to resolve, which I
think may be conceptually similar: prefix punctuation. Another
example:

*** Case 3 ***
(1) Robert M. Cover, Justice Accused 19 (1975). Cover specifically
refers to Dickens’
criticisms of English procedure. Id. at 999.

*** Case 3 ***
(1) Robert M. Cover, Justice Accused 19 (1975). Some scholars have
questioned Dickens’
criticisms of English procedure. See id. at 999.

This example shows that the “i” in id. is capitalized when it follows
"conclusive" punctuation, and lowercased otherwise. Signals like
"See" are only loosely standardized; users are free to make up their
own. The thing that is a reliable indicator of whether to capitalize
is the final punctuation immediately before the cite.

This text will be supplied by the text processing system in some way
(in Zotero-generated footnotes, it comes from the “Prefix” field of
the cite). It’s out on the periphery of CSL’s remit; but again, for
Bluebook, you can’t generate conforming citation strings unless you
can handle this case.

Thinking again about the same-note issue, here is a fresh proposal
that I think may be a little tidier: add a “context” attribute to the
list of conditionals, covering both of these cases:

attribute context { list { (“same-note” | “prefix-punctuation”) } }?,

What constitutes “punctuation” should probably be configurable. I
think it’s more of a style configuration issue than a language thing
(there will be mixed-language documents).

Any comments (or rotten tomatoes)?

Frank Bennett
Nagoya