Define `urlseen` bibliography string for Czech

[Witiko]

The urldate field produces the urlseen bibliography string in the output:

https://github.com/michal-h21/biblatex-iso690/blob/58cd557020786b14c003ff50d23772498509031b/iso.bbx#L397

The urlseen bibliography string is not defined for Czech by us:

https://github.com/michal-h21/biblatex-iso690/blob/58cd557020786b14c003ff50d23772498509031b/czech-iso.lbx#L16-L17

However, it is likely defined by BibLaTeX and expands to cit., which is correct according to the ČSN ISO 690-2:2000 norm, but has apparently been replaced by vid. in the newer ČSN ISO 690:2011 and ČSN ISO 690:2022 norms, although I don't have the newer norms on me to check.

[michal-h21]

I don't know about ČSN ISO 690:2022, but I think that in the 2011 version, the cit. string was used. From this Citakon conference presentation (slide 9), it seems that the preferred term could be "zobrazeno" or similar term. More serious change is that it should be placed at the end of the citation. I am not sure that the new Czech version of ISO 690 had been already published, but it seems that it would need a lot of changes.

[Witiko]

I don't know about ČSN ISO 690:2022, but I think that in the 2011 version, the cit. string was used.

I will need to check, I am going by information given by an anonymous reviewer, which may be wrong.

[michal-h21]

Maybe it is a local recommendation at MUNI? I've found this document, that recommends vid., but it is the only one I could find. Others, from CUNI, ZCU, and Citace.com, all used cit..

[Witiko]

The reviewer should not come from MUNI, but they could be confused by the same document. I will ask the librarians from MUNI why they recommend vid. instead of cit. Could be just an uncommon interpretation of the norm.

[Witiko]

@michal-h21 I asked the authors of the document that you linked and I received the following response (in Czech):

Dobrý den,

Vámi zmíněná norma ČSN ISO 690-2:2000 je již více jak deset let neplatná. Aktuálně je platná verze z roku 2011, ve které se používá zkratka vid. jako překlad anglické předlohy viewed. V případě potřeby na https://katalog.muni.cz/Record/MUB01000673383 seznam knihoven, ve kterých je norma z roku 2011 k nahlédnutí.

Pokud jde o přístupnost zkratky "cit.", tak v normě se mj. píše "Příklad použité v této mezinárodní normě nejsou předepisující, pokud jde o styl a interpunkci." Mám za to, že zkratka cit./vid. do tohoto nespadá, takže bych používal zkratku vid. (pro tu je ostatně i nastaven citační styl na https://www.zotero.org/styles používaný i v Mendeley nebo CitacePRO.)

Zdraví
Jiří Kratochvíl

I can pop into the FI MUNI library tomorrow and see what the norm says.

[michal-h21]

They seem to be right about the style in Zotero, but CitacePRO uses cit.. Their author even uses it in his recent book. So I think we need to take a look at the norm itself. We used to have it in the library, but I cannot find it now, so if you will be able to take a look, it would be great.

[Witiko]

@michal-h21

[michal-h21]

@Witiko thanks for the clarification, it seems quite obvious now. I've changed the bibliography strings for Czech to incorporate it.