Terms: reference item

Looking at the “reference item” term, someone might puzzle over why I
added this when “references” was already in there (it certainly
puzzled me, just now). “References” refers to cross-references
registered on the current item. I added “reference item” as a label
to use when referring to a source by its citation-number. So the
"reference item" term does have a distinct role, and it’s okay.

It needs a short form, though, for use in generating bibkeys in
citation-label styles, when no author name is available. Is it okay
to add a short form entry for the “reference item” term to the locales
files?

Frank

Frank Bennett wrote:

Looking at the “reference item” term, someone might puzzle over why I
added this when “references” was already in there (it certainly
puzzled me, just now). “References” refers to cross-references
registered on the current item.

So it is what a “crossref” is in bibtex?

I added “reference item” as a label
to use when referring to a source by its citation-number. So the
“reference item” term does have a distinct role, and it’s okay.

Can you given an example? where would reference item look different than
the “in-text citation”?

Sorry if that is clear to everybody else.

spaetz

signature.asc (260 Bytes)

Frank Bennett wrote:

Looking at the “reference item” term, someone might puzzle over why I
added this when “references” was already in there (it certainly
puzzled me, just now). “References” refers to cross-references
registered on the current item.

So it is what a “crossref” is in bibtex?

That’s the plan, I guess. It’s not used in any styles currently, but
it seems to correspond to the “references” field, which may be in that
semantic ballpark, at least.

I added “reference item” as a label
to use when referring to a source by its citation-number. So the
"reference item" term does have a distinct role, and it’s okay.

Can you given an example? where would reference item look different than
the “in-text citation”?

Sorry if that is clear to everybody else.

It’s probably clear only to me, I’ll admit, and it’s perfectly
reasonable to expect further explanation.

A number of authors have sought to have \citet{} (?) functionality in
Zotero. The citeproc-js processor has a feature that could implement
this, if it became a priority (the relevant tests are in the "magic"
section of the test suite). One of the tricky problems for
implementing an "author in text option is in switching between
author-date, footnote, and numbered styles. The “reference item” term
is used to supply the in-document term preceding a citation number.
Assuming that the “references” term referring to crossrefs is
eventually used for something in a style, that’s a different
expression, and may use a different word.

Frank Bennett wrote:

Looking at the “reference item” term, someone might puzzle over why I
added this when “references” was already in there (it certainly
puzzled me, just now). “References” refers to cross-references
registered on the current item.

So it is what a “crossref” is in bibtex?

That’s the plan, I guess. It’s not used in any styles currently, but
it seems to correspond to the “references” field, which may be in that
semantic ballpark, at least.

I added “reference item” as a label
to use when referring to a source by its citation-number. So the
"reference item" term does have a distinct role, and it’s okay.

Can you given an example? where would reference item look different than
the “in-text citation”?

Sorry if that is clear to everybody else.

It’s probably clear only to me, I’ll admit, and it’s perfectly
reasonable to expect further explanation.

I agree this is getting a little confusing, and we should try to make
it as clear as possible.

A number of authors have sought to have \citet{} (?) functionality in
Zotero. The citeproc-js processor has a feature that could implement
this, if it became a priority (the relevant tests are in the "magic"
section of the test suite). One of the tricky problems for
implementing an "author in text option is in switching between
author-date, footnote, and numbered styles. The “reference item” term
is used to supply the in-document term preceding a citation number.
Assuming that the “references” term referring to crossrefs is
eventually used for something in a style, that’s a different
expression, and may use a different word.

Sorry, but I’m still confused :slight_smile:

Bruce

As a side note: it might make sense to put a few XML comments in the
locales-xx-XX.xml files to clarify what terms mean and how them should be
translated. Or we could put in a link to a page where all the issues are
discussed. Babelzilla translators (myself included) would benefit from that.

Rintze

I agree this is getting a little confusing, and we should try to make
it as clear as possible.

Rebooting …

Taking a more sober look at this, things should work just fine if
"references" is changed as follows:

OLD

<term name="references">

NEW

<term name="references">
  <single>reference</single>
  <multiple>references</multiple>
</term>
<term name="references" form="short">
  <single>ref</single>
  <multiple>refs</multiple>
</term>

The long-standing “references” term seems to be a label for use
against codes or index numbers that point to one or more items within
the bibliography. That’s exactly what my own cases use the new
"reference item" term for, so there was actually no need for a fresh
term. So in addition to making the change shown above, “reference
item” should be dropped.

Sorry for the confusion over this item. I think this change will help
clear things up a bit.

Frank

Frank Bennett wrote:

I agree this is getting a little confusing, and we should try to make
it as clear as possible.

Rebooting …

Sorry for the confusion over this item. I think this change will help
clear things up a bit.

OK, I think I got it now.

I have to agree with Bruce: your explanations are thorough and
excellent. But sometimes a simple specific example of how things look
like is much easier to understand. :slight_smile:

Thanks,
Seabstian

signature.asc (260 Bytes)