Align item types and field mappings

[rmzelle]

Zotero and Mendeley don't share the same item types, field availability, and field mappings (this affects other CSL-supporting applications as well). This limits interoperability of CSL styles between these applications (especially those styles that rely on field content instead of item-type conditionals), and an effort to align things would dramatically improve style output reproducibility.

[rmzelle]

For Zotero, there is already an effort to redesign the data model of item types, fields, and field availability: https://github.com/ajlyon/zotero-bits/wiki/Zotero-types-whiteboard

If CSL is to succeed as a standard, I think we should take a more leading role in defining which item types should have which fields.

[bdarcus]

The question is, how?

Maybe we need a table (say on this project wiki?) with columns for csl, zotero, mendeley, etc. types and variables?

[bdarcus]

Alright, a place-holder. People from Zotero, Mendeley, etc. should fill this out if they like.

https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/wiki/Data-Model-and-Mappings

[avram]

Note that the Zotero mappings are already here: http://gsl-nagoya-u.net/http/pub/csl-fields/index.html

And that the Zotero type review is mainly in the issue tracker: https://github.com/ajlyon/zotero-bits/issues

[rmzelle]

I think an important first step would be Mendeley and Papers publicizing their item type/field mappings, in a way similar to http://gsl-nagoya-u.net/http/pub/csl-fields/index.html.

[bdarcus]

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:05 AM, rmzelle
reply@reply.github.com
wrote:

I think an important first step would be Mendeley and Papers publicizing their item type/field mappings, in a way similar to http://gsl-nagoya-u.net/http/pub/csl-fields/index.html.

That's why I put up the table. Anyone can add to it, and it's better
to have it at one place.

Bruce

[rmzelle]

Maybe a (Google docs) spreadsheet would work better for this?

[bdarcus]

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:31 AM, rmzelle
reply@reply.github.com
wrote:

Maybe a (Google docs) spreadsheet would work better for this?

Either way.

[rmzelle]

I tinkered a little with Zoho Creator, an online database app. I'm not too familiar with database software, but using a database might make it easier to maintain the overview of item types and field mappings, while making them easier to parse. See an early effort:

https://creator.zoho.com/rmzelle/csl-item-type-field-mapping/#View:Item_Type_View

[jimeng]

I have been working with mapping Mendeley attribute names to CSL attribute names for use with citeproc-js. I'm not sure that citeproc-js is fully CSL conformant, but I think it is. I have updated the page added by bdarcus by adding a table named "tentative entries".

https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/wiki/Data-Model-and-Mappings

The first part of that table contains my best guesses at mappings of CSL attribute names to Mendeley names. The second part contains Mendeley attributes for which I do not see any corresponding CSL attributes. I will try to add a list of CSL attributes that don't seem to map to CSL attributes.

It would be great to complete the "verified" table at the top of the page, if anyone has time and knowledge.

[rmzelle]

@jimeng, have you seen http://support.mendeley.com/customer/portal/articles/364144-csl-type-mapping ?

[jimeng]

Thanks, @rmzelle. Very helpful.

[jimeng]

Based on information from the Mendeley website, I updated the table added by @bdarcus. I also updated the lower table ("tentative entries") to include CSL attribute names for which the Mendeley site does not define mappings.

Some of these (e.g. id, type, author, editor) are pretty clear. Those could be moved to the top table. Others are less clear.

It might be helpful if someone could add entries for Mendeley attributes that do not map to CSL. I can't provide that at the moment.

[bdarcus]

Thanks much for doing this!

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:55 AM, jimeng notifications@github.com wrote:

Based on information from the Mendeley website, I updated the table added
by @bdarcus https://github.com/bdarcus. I also updated the lower table
("tentative entries") to include CSL attribute names for which the Mendeley
site does not define mappings.

Some of these (e.g. id, type, author, editor) are pretty clear. Those
could be moved to the top table. Others are less clear.

It might be helpful if someone could add entries for Mendeley attributes
that do not map to CSL. I can't provide that at the moment.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/61#issuecomment-9817616.

[bwiernik]

@denismaier This should be formalized.

cf. https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/do-we-need-style-coding-guidelines/1627/8
cf. zotero/zotero-bits#76