search

zotero / zotero-bits

CSL-related community feedback for Zotero
54 stars 8 forks source link

Book revision #45

Closed fbennett closed 12 years ago

fbennett commented 12 years ago

Looseleaf services in law state revision numbers at the base of the pages, which are swapped in by the librarian. These are specially cited, as specified in OSCOLA section 3.2.7:

Cross on Local Government Law, para 8–106 (R 30 July 2008)

R 30 being the revision number.

Propose mapping "number" for books from a new Zotero "revision" field associated with the book type, with label "Revision".

bdarcus commented 12 years ago

I don't think CSL "number" is consistent with a revision number (which seems awfully idiosyncratic; can you describe what this means generically?). On Sep 13, 2011 8:07 AM, "Frank Bennett" < reply@reply.github.com> wrote:

Looseleaf services in law state revision numbers at the base of the pages, which are swapped in by the librarian. These are specially cited, as specified in OSCOLA section 3.2.7:

Cross on Local Government Law, para 8–106 (R 30 July 2008)

R 30 being the revision number.

Propose mapping "number" for books from a new Zotero "revision" field associated with the book type, with label "Revision".

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/ajlyon/zotero-bits/issues/45

avram commented 12 years ago

And this is something we'd see in addition to edition information?

fbennett commented 12 years ago

Actually, hold that thought. I think "edition" will cover the case.

The revisions to a looseleaf service arrive as a sheaf of pages that the librarian inserts into the binder manually, throwing away the old pages. It's a bit different than an "edition", since the various revisions are scattered through the volume; you have to look at the footer of the page to know when that page was last updated.

But with the new logic for handling numbers that I've put into the processor, is-numeric against a revision number written as "R 30" would evaluate false. That allows the label to be suppressed, and as the "revision number" normally goes into a citation in the same position as the edition would, it should all work.

I'll close this ticket for now. We can look at it again if I run into trouble when I get to the tests on this use case.