adding support for reviews #5

Closed
bdarcus opened this Issue Mar 19, 2011 · 20 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
Owner

bdarcus commented Mar 19, 2011

I don't think we can currently properly support reviews. I'd like to be able to support the expansive support I mention later in this thread:

http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/97/book-reviews-another-item-type/#Item_41

Might it be enough to add variables like:

  • reviewed-title
  • reviewed-author
  • reviewed-editor
  • reviewed-issued
  • reviewed-publisher

...?


Owner

bdarcus commented Mar 19, 2011

Do you think we can forgo the addition of an accompanying 'book-review' item
type in CSL? In the post on the Zotero forums you suggest adding a "Book
Review" Zotero item type, but perhaps that could just be mapped to "book" in
CSL?

Anyway, it might be worthwhile adding this to https://github.com/ajlyon
/zotero-bits/wiki/Zotero-types-whiteboard


Original Comment By: Rintze Zelle
Owner

bdarcus commented Mar 19, 2011

My thought in that comment was just that a Zotero "Book Review" would map to a
CSL "article."


Original Comment By: Bruce D'Arcus
Owner

bdarcus commented Mar 19, 2011

Right (sorry for the "book" comment, my brain clearly isn't working today).


Original Comment By: Rintze Zelle
Owner

bdarcus commented Mar 19, 2011

If you add "reviewed book title" to article, the article item type can support
reviews; we'd also need to map "reviewed author". these are the only two
needed.


Original Comment By: Anonymous
Owner

bdarcus commented Mar 19, 2011

Hi Anonymous, can you identify yourself?


Original Comment By: Rintze Zelle
Owner

bdarcus commented Mar 19, 2011

'If you add "reviewed book title" to article, the article item type can
support reviews; we'd also need to map "reviewed author". these are the only
two needed.'

But this would only support book reviews, and a fairly limited range of such
citations. My suggestion is intended to be broader.


Original Comment By: Bruce D'Arcus
Owner

bdarcus commented Mar 19, 2011

This was me (sorry I didn't log in):

"If you add "reviewed book title" to article, the article item type can
support reviews; we'd also need to map "reviewed author". these are the only
two needed."

Right, so it's shouldn't be "reviewed book title" but "reviewed title" so it
can refer to all possible works (games, plays, films, etc.). What I meant is
that we could add "reviewed author" and "reviewed title" to Journal Article,
Magazine Article, and Newspaper Article. This way the review citation will be
formatted correctly for each source, and the basic information required for
citation will be included. If Book Review is its own item, how can the code
distinguish a newspaper review from the one in a journal (formatting is
different in the two cases)? Bruce is right that for other reasons researchers
would prefer knowing other info (publisher etc.), but I think that could wait
for the future hierarchical structure.


Original Comment By: erazlogo
Owner

bdarcus commented Mar 19, 2011

"If Book Review is its own item, how can the code distinguish a newspaper
review from the one in a journal (formatting is different in the two cases)?"

Two options:

  1. restrict it to journal articles
  2. add a field for the article type (default journal article)

"Bruce is right that for other reasons researchers would prefer knowing other
info (publisher etc.), but I think that could wait for the future hierarchical
structure."

Yes. My idea here is to add the broader support in CSL now, and then allow
implementors to catch up. This is kind of tricky though.


Original Comment By: Bruce D'Arcus

@bdarcus bdarcus closed this Mar 19, 2011

@bdarcus bdarcus reopened this Mar 19, 2011

Owner

rmzelle commented Oct 25, 2011

Are there any objections against implementing erazlogo's suggestion?

In that case, the CSL changes would just consist of the addition of a name variable (e.g. "reviewed-author"), and a standard variable (e.g. "reviewed-title").

Owner

bdarcus commented Oct 25, 2011

Are there any objections against implementing erazlogo's suggestion?
In that case, the CSL changes would just consist of the addition of a name variable (e.g. "reviewed-author"), and a standard variable (e.g. "reviewed-title").

I could be wrong, but I don't believe that'd be sufficient.

Owner

rmzelle commented Oct 25, 2011

What would we need in addition to that, then?

Owner

bdarcus commented Oct 25, 2011

See top post ;-)

Even that may not be ultimately sufficient, but I believe some styles do require the publication information for the reviewed item.

Owner

rmzelle commented Oct 26, 2011

In that case I'll just commit what you and others deem necessary.

Owner

rmzelle commented Nov 14, 2011

"I believe some styles do require the publication information for the reviewed item."

I think we could help this ticket move along if we would have some actual information about how reviews are cited. For APA (which only uses reviewed-title and reviewed-author (and item type)): http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/07/

@bdarcus, do you have some documentation on hand that shows that the other fields are necessary as well?

Owner

bdarcus commented Nov 14, 2011

First data point; CMS:

  1. name of reviewer
  2. title of review
  3. title of reviewed work
  4. author of reviewed work
  5. location (for performances)
  6. date (for performances)
  7. periodical, etc. (container-title)

So CMS does not require original publication information (on, for example, books, which is what I was concerned about).

More later (if I find it).

Owner

rmzelle commented Apr 26, 2012

  • name of reviewer --> CSL variable: author
  • title of review --> CSL variable: title
  • title of reviewed work --> CSL variable: reviewed-title
  • author of reviewed work --> CSL variable: reviewed-author
  • location (for performances) --> CSL variable: event-place
  • date (for performances) --> CSL variable: event-date
  • periodical, etc. --> CSL variable: container-title

So for CMS we only need two new CSL variables?

Owner

rmzelle commented Apr 29, 2012

@bdarcus, if you want to see any support for reviews appear in CSL 1.0.1, you better respond a bit faster. You're much more familiar with citing reviews than me. :)

Owner

bdarcus commented Apr 29, 2012

What can I say: it's end of semester, and i have a ton of stuff going on
beyond the normal end-of-term chaos.

I believe your interpretation is correct, and suggest we just start there
for 1.0.1, and adjust as needed, based on experience.

On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Rintze M. Zelle <
reply@reply.github.com

wrote:

@bdarcus, if you want to see any support for reviews appear in CSL 1.0.1,
you better respond a bit faster. You're much more familiar with citing
reviews than me. :)


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

#5 (comment)

Owner

rmzelle commented Apr 29, 2012

Okay, that affirmation (along with that of @erazlogo) is all I needed. Two new variables it is.

Owner

rmzelle commented May 1, 2012

Added the two variables "reviewed-author" and "reviewed-title".

Spec: citation-style-language/documentation@c97026e
Schema: 6b25974

@rmzelle rmzelle closed this May 22, 2012

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment