support Standards item type

[mmoole]

First lets recap whats already been on the forums regarding the standards item type: http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/2914/ btw the link to the IEE manual didn't work for me, but this one works: https://development.standards.ieee.org/myproject/Public/mytools/draft/styleman.pdf see chapter 18.2

Although standards have a lot of specific information, for citing we only need the most important things. So lets just start with the most important fields on the top:

• designator for the body org in short form - i.e. ISO/IEC/DIN/ but this can also be a combination like DIN EN ISO.…
• designator for the specific standard - usually a number, i.e. 10646
• number of the part if applicable, i.e. -4 (when citing ISO/IEC 7498-4)
• year - this is also often followed with a colon directly by the number, i.e. 10646:2003 well, it could also make sense to include all these four into one field. This might make it much easier!?
• title - the title of the standard
• title of the standards part, if applicable, i.e. Part 4: Management framework
• long form of the body organization/issuing authority - could also be a company name
• pages
• ISBN number if applicable
• language
• issuing workgroup
• short title
• place
• country
• abstract
• URL

maybe:

• ICS class - for example 01.040.31; 31.260 - see for info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Classification_for_Standards
• DOI
• type or genre: specification, test method, procedure, guide etc…

i hope i didn't miss a lot, so feel free to comment and make more suggestions :-)

[redleafnew]

ok. Is there a page field in zotero?

[adam3smith]

See dstillman's link above -- a specific cited page or page range wouldn't be in the metadata for an item, it would be added to a citation.

[redleafnew]

however the bibliography needs to show the page

[adam3smith]

but that's the same with books etc., isn't it? That's just a systematic decision in CSL (and Zotero) to not include: adding specific pages to the bibliography in numeric styles is done occasionally, but is conceptually very strange and I wouldn't really know how to support this. Certainly we wouldn't want users to create a separate version of an item with a different number in the page field every time they cite a specific page of a work.

[redleafnew]

yes. Sometime standards are published like a book in China.

[redleafnew]

So I think the pages field could be included.

[dstillman]

I think you're misunderstanding this. Zotero already provides a way to cite specific pages in a book. Read the section I linked to above, and try one of the word processor plugins for yourself.

The only actual page-related field book items have is numPages. Citing of specific pages is taken care of by the word processor plugins.

[redleafnew]

ok, then could the numPages be included?

[adam3smith]

It'd make more sense, but I really think you're misunderstanding the discussion above: Let me say this again: using specific page numbers in the bibliography of numeric citation styles isn't supported by Zotero or CSL and likely won't be for a long time if ever. That has nothing to do with the standard item type.

Using other fields to hack around this is just going to cause problems, so we certainly wouldn't want to encourage that in any way.

[redleafnew]

Got it, many thanks.

[adam3smith]

OK, if @bwiernik (and anyone else with an opinion on this) agrees, I think we have a proposal

[linjaaho]

Thanks both -- so going by the lists above, a couple of remaining questions and some comments:

1. do we need publisher and authority or just one of the two? And if the latter, which is better? (I'd be weakly inclined towards authority). In either case, how should this field be called in Zotero?
2. Do we need publisher-place as suggested by @redleafnew above? (I don't currently think so, but OK if we do)
3. Do we actually need a page field? Specifying a page range cited would be via locator and those are available anyway?
4. We'll definitely want genre (I imagine we'd keep this Zotero "type") as described in some of the earlier posts
5. I think version makes more sense than edition as suggested by @linjaaho

1. I'm also inclined towards authority, but calling it publisher is not a problem too. A good name for it could be Organization, Issuer or Body.
2. For some citation styles, maybe yes. Especially some educational institutions with their personal citation styles are finicky and requiring the place (which is a little weird, who needs the place with ISO or IEC)? But including it would serve users better.
3. I think this is technical issue, as discussed above.
4. No opinion on that.
5. In the world of standardization, it depends on the body, which is used. Usually it is called an edition. In the CEN/CENELEC, IEC and ISO, the word edition is used, but for instance ETSI uses word version.

[linjaaho]

To be clear: I agree with your proposal, these are just suggestions.

[dstillman]

We have "Issuing Authority" (used for patents and mapped to authority) translated already. Do we want to use that, or call it "Issuer"? Fine if we think "Issuer" is more appropriate here.

[linjaaho]

We have "Issuing Authority" (used for patents and mapped to authority) translated already. Do we want to use that, or call it "Issuer"? Fine if we think "Issuer" is more appropriate here.

Issuing authority is just fine – the word could be also SDO or publisher but all these are clear in my opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standards_organization

[dstillman]

How about "Standards Body"? "Standards Organization" is a bit too long for the item pane. ("Standards Body" is also the term I'm most familiar with, for what that's worth.)

"Publisher" is something else, as noted above.

[dstillman]

Or we could do just "Organization". The "Standards" in "Standards Body" is maybe a bit redundant in this context, but I'm not sure if just "Organization" is too vague.

[dstillman]

Standards Body:

Organization:

[WarthogARJ]

It's a semantic discussion, but also one about levels of abstraction. I guess you guys are saying they're two words for the same thing. I'm saying they're not, though admittedly not with great certainty.

Sorry, am late to this. But I was very early to bring the issue up, and I was told nothing could be done at the time due to inability to alter Zotero's framework to any large degree.

My points: (1) Item Type: I agree that the overall, umbrella term should be STANDARD. Not all Standards are Specifications: some are just definitions. Or Recommended Practices. Or several other types of standard.

With that in mind, I would consider ISO as the best example to encompass in terms of nomenclature. And its very name is: "International Organization for Standardization"

So there we can settle two aspects: "Standard" "Organisation"

(2) Author A true Standard does not have an Author(s). It is a product of a Committee, within a standards body (association). The actual people who make up the Committee are not pertinent. However, in Zotero, it would be useful to have the "Organisation" field output in the "Author" field (see below)

(3) Publisher: Standards are often defined as "Published" but it's misleading to have a field for "Publisher" "Published" is a STATUS: a milestone in the life of a Standard. The work of "Publisher" is done by a given Standard's body: they hold any Copyright. So I don't see a need for anything except "Organisation".

(4) Multiple Organisations: However, there are often several Standards Organisations linked to a given Standard. In Europe, it often has three:

• National Standards Body's name (DIN for German, BSI for UK etc)
• CEN (the umbrella EEC body)
• ISO It often, but not always uses the same number. But the only difference is a coverpage, belonging to the specific national standards body that issued it (and often translated it to the national language).

So perhaps the field could be "Associated Organisation". And it's important to have the abbreviation of the Standards Assocation: ISO, CEN, BSI, DIN, NACE, ASME, ASTM etc etc

This is the "Author" of the Standard in terms of how you want it displayed in Zotero.

(5) Committee: Most standards are drafted by a specific "Committee" (Technical Committee etc). The field should include room for that since it's a useful piece of information to link related standards together

(6) Status We need a specific field for STATUS. It goes from Draft, to Published to Withdrawn. There are other sub-stages, but these three are the most important ones to cover.

(7) Type This is a bit misleading I think, unless you want it to be the "Status" Although you might want to add the closely linked items to Standards such as:

• Working Practice
• Technical Note
• Recommended Practice

(7) Zotero GUI listing tags/fields: I think it would be very useful to structure "Item Type Standards" to send specific output (that you can select to be displayed in the Listing Field).

For instance, on a standard monitor, you can display the following very usefully of a mixed series of references: Title (the default) Creator Date Publication

But for Standards, this is not very useful.

Title: The full standards title is usually too long to be very useful, and most people use a combination of Organisation abreviation plus number instead as the "Title" for a given Standard. Therefore, I would have the "Title" output field as a concatenation of: "Number" (c/w Part Number)+ "Year" (Calendar Year only, no month or day) + "Title" Since "Title" is almost always too long to be displayed, and frequently the distinuguishing words are near the end, "Title" on its own is not very useful

"Creator" Output Field: change this to be Organisation, as an abbreviation. For example: ISO CEN ASTM BSI DIN

"Date" Field is as above, just the Calendar Year: no Date or Month. It would be misleading to have Zotero output January 1, 2000 if you had "2000" as the "Date" for the Standard Unless you have "Date" as "Published Date", but most standards users would not be interested in that information, or likely even know it

[WarthogARJ]

WRT the definition of a "Standard", and "Type" it can get confusing, especially for American standards since there is no standardisation for American standards (no pun intended). That's because there is no overall ruling national standards body in the USA. ANSI is only advisory and "co-ordinating", unlike the status of national standards bodies elsewhere in the world (for example in Germany it is DIN, in UK it is BSI etc). The USA has a very complex and inconsistent series of associations that issue standards: there's >10,000 of them. Compared to in a given EU Country that has 1 or 2.

(1) The ASTM defines a Standard as:" In ASTM terminology, standards include test methods, definitions, recommended practices, classifications and specifications" (ASTM Charter).

(2) NACE another American-based standards body (National Association Corrosion Engineers, now combined with AMPP) defines a Standard as: "AMPP issues three classes of standards: Standard Practices (SP), Standard Test Methods (TM), and Standard Material Requirements (MR)"

(3) API (American Petroleum Institute) issues the following as "standards": Standard (Std) Recommended Practice (RP) Specification (Spec) Technical Recommendation (TR)

I recommend calling all the above "Standards", and then distinguishing them by the "Type" field.

[WarthogARJ]

Perhaps I missed it, but this issue of how to classify a TECHNICAL standard is already quite exhaustively covered by ISO itself: International Classification for Standards (ICS).

It's like a Dewey-Decimal system for Standards (in fact its website says exactly that).

Wikipedia has a reasonable description of it: [])(url)

And the current database/listing for the ISO standards following it are at: [](url)

And Document Center has a Search scheme using it, that includes ISO, ASTM, DIN, BSI, IEC [](url)

ANSI has a search engine using it for American standards: [](url) Also see: [](url)

ICS can be applied to ANY technical standard, and it's actively used by: ISO IEEE ANSI ASTM NIST EN (and related BSI, DIN and other European Standards Organisations)

The goal of ANSI (the US federally funded standards body) is to gradually get all American standards bodies under its wing...which might occur before the metric system is adopted...:-}

Therefore, Zotero should have a structured input for ICS classification. And it would be a useful plug-in to have, where you specify the ICS number and retrieve the Standard info for it.

[WarthogARJ]

In fact, ANSI uses the ICS classification itself to classify the various SDO's (Standards Developing Organisations). Look at the tab for "View by Industrial Sector". Each Category is the ICS one. For example: Agricultural Machines, Implements, and Equipment - 65.060

Unfortunately due to the embyonic nature of standards standardisation in the USA, not all SDO's are ANSI certified, and very few use the ICS classification on their standards. So you can use the ICS to go FROM the ANSI site to the SDO, but not the other way.

However, for European standards, the link works both ways.

[WarthogARJ]

Hi: Has anyone read what I wrote here? I know I wrote a lot, but I tried to do it in an organised manner. Could I have some quick feedback that it's been at least read? And if anyone has questions.

I raised the issue of Engineering Standards in 2012: [](url) https://forums.zotero.org/discussion/26132/item-type-for-engineering-standards#latest

And I understood it was on the "To Do" list, and was expected in maybe a year. I asked again in 2014. Then in 2018. Is now late 2022, and is great something can be done now.

No blame, but I made suggestions then, and I think that my above input good, and is well supported.

I work with standards as both a User, and to help draft them. The UIAA SafeCom issues climbing equipment standards, and this feeds into CEN, which feeds into ISO.

And I'm aware of the differences between US standards and European/ISO ones. It's pretty easy to address most European ones, because there has been a lot of attention paid to making them consistent: both across 31 European countries, as well as internationally with ISO. But is not the case in the USA, for better or worse: "it is what it is". ANSI is trying to change that, but there's a long way to go.

As I see it, with Zotero, adding an Item Type "Standard" is better than what exists now: which is nothing. Having "Organisation" is fine too. But the field "Authors" should not be active if it is for a "Standard". That is misleading. Even "Creator" on its own is misleading. As mentioned below, perhaps substitute "Committtee" for "Authors" if "Standard" is selected.

Generically, ALL Standards follow this route (American, European etc etc): (1) Some entity requests to another entity that a Standard is generated: this varies, and doesn't need to be in Zotero Could be a person, or an organisation. And sometimes the same entity that requests it is the parent organisation that drafts the standard (see below)

(2) Then some entity works on the Standard, and issues a Draft This Draft should be documented in Zotero, if that's what the item is you want to enter into Zotero But it's important to note it is a DRAFT.

And we need to document: Organisation that issued the Draft Date it was issued Number of the Draft And that it is a "Draft" You can have multiple versions of the Draft, but that is tracked by the Number and/or Date It would be helpful to have a field for "Committee": if you like, this can be what is filed under "Author"

(3) Issued Standard: After approved, one could say it has been "Published", but as I said above, not all Standards can be said to have a "Publisher". Some do, some don't. Instead, an Issued Standard should have the following: Organisation that has issued it: this is linked to the NUMBER Number Date it is issued (which is the Effective Date usually)

And you often have multiple Organisations that use pretty well the SAME Standard Body But they usually adjust the Heading/Title to add their Abbreviation to the title And sometimes adjust the Number too. And the Language, if translated.

But it will ALWAYS have an associated "Parent" Organisation that did the initial creation of it. And controls when it is revised, and perhaps withdrawn.

In Europe ( by which I mean the EEC: Europe Economic Community, not just the EU) many standards have 2 if not 3 Organisations linked to them: CEN: the EEC body that created the Standard "XYZ": the National Standards Body that uses the CEN standard, and in effect issues it in its own country, and often translates it (and enforces it) This could by BSI (British Standards Institution), DIN (German) etc etc. ISO: if the CEN standard has been adopted by ISO. Not all CEN Standards are adopted.

In the USA, you could have two organisations linked to a given Standard: SDO: Standards Developing Organisation And sometimes ANSI: the Federal body that is trying to co-ordinate standards across the USA But unlike the CEN, ANSI does not (tend) to DEVELOP standards: SDO's do that. Exception are the IEC-related standards.

However, it is not so often (I suspect never: I've not seen it to my recollection) that a "homegrown" standard by most American SDO's would be adopted as-is by ISO, That is, issued as an International Standard. The format is not suitable for ISO. The exceptions are standrds from ASTM, ASME and NIST: they come closest to ISO formats. But even then, they are changed so much that they are no longer the same item if they are used to help draft an ISO standard.

An example is BS EN ISO/ASTM 52915:2017 Specification for additive manufacturing... This Standard is IDENTICAL to the ISO/ASTM 52915 (and it says that in the BSI coverpage).

And if you look at the related ASTM listing of it (ASTM ISO/ASTM 52915) the body is SIMILAR but NOT identical to the ISO/ASTM 52915 standard. There is more than just a coverpage change, and a slight tweak to the title (adding an organisation abbreviatiion in front of the ISO/ASTM 52915).

THEREFORE, my point is, Zotero needs to distinguish the RELATED Organisations with a given standard (and indeed, which one is the PARENT, or perhaps RULING organisation. And then what organisation has adopted it to in effect re-issue it in its own jurisdiction.

This is more critical with Standard with an American link.

In Europe, the CEN format is often taken in as-is for an ISO Standard. Largely because the same people work on the same Committe that issues initially the CEN Stanadard, which is then adopted by ISO. An example can be seen in BS EN ISO 20312:2012 Petroleum amnd natural gas industries... This Standard was initially DRAFTED and then ISSUED by CEN (by Tech Committee CEN/TC 12). That's what the "EN" means in the title. Then it has been issued in the UK, by the BSI, using the same number, and with a BSO coverpage, but the body is from CEN. And THEN, it has been adopted "lock stock and barrrel" by ISO, and uses the SAME number. There is an ISO Committee that confirms it is suitable for ISO as issued: ISO/TC 67). And a statement that this ISO TC has been prepared "In collaboration" with the CEN TC.

And the EXACT same Standard is issued by ALL the National Bodies of the EEC (31 in total, from Austria thru to UK), but only differing in the first part of the title of the Standard (the National Standards body will have its own initials there), and usually a cover page (and often a translation into the country's own language).

My point is that it's important to identify the "parent" organisation for Standards, as well as the other Organisations that has re-issued it, if that is the case.

Perhaps this all sounds confusing, but if Zotero intends to have some sort of robust consistent classification for Standards, then this is important to understand.

[adam3smith]

Has anyone read what I wrote here?

You do realize when you posted this, yes?

There is indeed a bit too much going on, but for what I gather are the main new issues:

1. Author/Creator: we have creator fields currently for all item types, including things like case and statute where they don't make sense, so I don't think this does much harm here, though I'd also not have a problem with leaving it out.

2. Status makes sense to me. I'd add that to the above

3. Publisher: is explicitly discussed and addressed as separate from organization in (at least) the Chinese case above, so that's staying in addition to organization/Standards Body. May not exist or be relevant for all cases

4. Related Organizations/Bodies: It's not clear to me how that would be incorporated reasonably into the Zotero data model or how it appears in citations (does it ever?). As I understand it, you'd cite one specific version of the standard -- say the Slovenian one -- even if it's understood to be identical in content to a parent CEN/ISO one. The different organization abbreviations are part of the standard number which is how I'd imagine they enter the citation. Doing this via the author field is going to get incredibly messy.

[dstillman]

There are examples with authors in this thread. IETF RFCs have authors.

I assume for a committee you'd just use the single-field mode.

[WarthogARJ]

OK, thanks for feedback. And sorry for being impatient.

(1) Author/Creator field: No offence, but I'd say just because this is incorrect for Case And Statute, that it's a good idea to add to the error with a 3rd misleading case. I would say this being the 3rd time it would be wrong, and I think misleading, helps justify a fix.

Perhaps the best would be to have the "Author" field read "Creator". For EVERYTHING in Zotero. Or else have it read "Author/Creator".

Then for Standards, one would enter the Committee that wrote it.

(2) Status: Great. I think it needs three types: Draft, Active, Withdrawn

(3) Publisher: No offence, but citing the Chinese case is "tail wags dog". The bulk (>99.9%) of standards that people use are, in this order, European-based then US-based. In terms of Users, Population, GDP etc etc. I think a Zotero Standards entry should aim at being a good match for these types of standards. See below.

(4) Multiple Bodies: "It's not clear to me how that would be incorporated reasonably into the Zotero data model or how it appears in citations (does it ever?): Yes: it occurs for most European/American technical standards. And Yes, I don't think including it in Authors would be ideal: rather use the Committee for "Author" as the "Creator".

One prime case of being useful is for the bulk of American standards. That are issued by an SDO, and without any reference to ANSI. But however are indeed acredited by ANSI.

A Zotero user might not decide to enter anything for any other Body, but the option should be there. Once the Zotero Standard starts going, hopefully a plugin will be written to add the relevant information.

Perhaps this is not obvious to people with a non-technical foundation, but standards by their nature are....standardised. Compare them to research published in Journals. There are thousands of Journals, with no standardised format. Whereas for the mainstream engineering technical standards (ISO, EN, ASTM, ASME, IEC) there is ONE format per body.

[WarthogARJ]

There are examples with authors in this thread. IETF RFCs have authors. Authors: I would view Standards from IETF to be a very (very) small case out of the overwhelmingly larger number of Standards issued by the mainstream engineering standards organisations: ISO, ASTM, ASME, EN, IEC etc etc.

I would argue that by their very nature, that Standards do not have an "Author". It's close to anethema for a mainstream engineering Standard to have an "Author", if you look at how "Author" is defined by various works. If we use the Committee of a given Standard as the "Author", then: (1) Copyright: none, resides with issueing Organisation (2) Individual recognition (i.e. to an individual human being): none (see below) (3) Writer: often (usually) does NOT actually write ANYTHING in the published work, the standard (see below)

A mainstream standard (from ISO, EN, ASTM, IEC etc) has a COMMITTEE comprised of technical matter experts who contribute their expertise, and there is often a 2nd group of professionals from the supporting Standards (parent) Organisation who take that and actually draft (write) the Standard. For most CEN standards, the supporting body is the German DIN. For some, like ISO oilfield related standards, it is the French AFNOR.

Are either of these an "Author" in the same sense as they are for other references? I'd say No. There are not, and cannot be a specific individual. The Committee is usually comprised of representatives of stakeholders. Sure, sometimes individual experts are on a Committtee, but at the discretion of the Committee Secretary. And then you'd class them as representatives of the existing subject knowledge: replaceable to other experts

I would argue that compared to other references that Zotero covers, that "Author" for a Standard is split into two parts: (1) the actual intellectual input (from the members of the Committee) (2) the organisation and output of it in the required format (by paid technical writers of the parent body)

Is closer to someone who hires a ghost writer to write something. They are both required to fulfill the author duty.

[adam3smith]

Sorry, but this is just not a helpful way to engage. Your expertise is welcome, but only if you can contribute it with an open mind and some humility & respect to the expertise and interest of others. Otherwise, I'd suggest writing your own app.

[mmoole]

I think there are a lot of perspectives being presented here which may lead to misunderstandings (I love this 🥳), examples being:

• end users are directly writing to developers, who then could often interpret things being mentioned as requirements (I would always fall for this);
• trying to reflect 'all' use cases in the digital model in Zotero - but we need a trade off somewhere between enough details and not too rough to be unusable;
• subject-matter experts in this or that field chiming in, being understood in not their expressed/intended ways, leading to varying motivation on all sides...;
• etc...

I would add some snippets to these aspects:

• status/state: although I would agree on the status of 'draft', the other states of being 'active'/'effective' or 'withdrawn' tend to not be part of the published instance of the standard. I.e. there is a draft version (or multiple) that's being published as draft, but the then released standard is published only once. It doesn't get republished with another state/status, unlike the draft. This means the state of the released standard changes over time. One mostly would need to look it up at an authoritative body's website. If we would be even more complete, I would also suggest 'superseded' as state (as had been mentioned above ( https://github.com/zotero/zotero-bits/issues/52#issuecomment-11839920_ ). But in the end, I am not so certain it would make sense to include this at the first CSL release containing standards. Maybe that is an aspect that will develop further once standards are included.

• author/creator: as Zotero already has many kinds of creators for various item types, I don't think we need more here. From an end user point of view it may be nice to see it labeled a bit different from for example at the book type. Here I would also say that once standards are in CSL and Zotero, it may turn out to be useful to have this and that, but those may be different things or made a bit differently than we see things now.

But finally I have to say as an end user I am very happy to use Zotero, and look forward at what the development team will do towards standards. We can contribute input from various points of views here (and this may be quite inconsistent and contain contradictions), but it's up to the real developers to blend this in a fully specified, impeccable CSL schema that will work with Zotero and all CSL using apps out there 🤩.

[fgnievinski]

Here are some examples of citations to standards (in APA Style, 7th Ed.):

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/references/examples/iso-standard-references

I don't see anything super specific or incompatible in the usage of authors field.

FGN

[WarthogARJ]

I think there are a lot of perspectives being presented here which may lead to misunderstandings (I love this 🥳), examples being:

• end users are directly writing to developers, who then could often interpret things being mentioned as requirements (I would always fall for this);
• trying to reflect 'all' use cases in the digital model in Zotero - but we need a trade off somewhere between enough details and not too rough to be unusable;
• subject-matter experts in this or that field chiming in, being understood in not their expressed/intended ways, leading to varying motivation on all sides...;
• etc...

I would add some snippets to these aspects:

• status/state: although I would agree on the status of 'draft', the other states of being 'active'/'effective' or 'withdrawn' tend to not be part of the published instance of the standard. I.e. there is a draft version (or multiple) that's being published as draft, but the then released standard is published only once. It doesn't get republished with another state/status, unlike the draft. This means the state of the released standard changes over time. One mostly would need to look it up at an authoritative body's website. If we would be even more complete, I would also suggest 'superseded' as state (as had been mentioned above ( support Standards item type #52 (comment)_ ). But in the end, I am not so certain it would make sense to include this at the first CSL release containing standards. Maybe that is an aspect that will develop further once standards are included.
• author/creator: as Zotero already has many kinds of creators for various item types, I don't think we need more here. From an end user point of view it may be nice to see it labeled a bit different from for example at the book type. Here I would also say that once standards are in CSL and Zotero, it may turn out to be useful to have this and that, but those may be different things or made a bit differently than we see things now.

But finally I have to say as an end user I am very happy to use Zotero, and look forward at what the development team will do towards standards. We can contribute input from various points of views here (and this may be quite inconsistent and contain contradictions), but it's up to the real developers to blend this in a fully specified, impeccable CSL schema that will work with Zotero and all CSL using apps out there 🤩.

(1) End Users writing to Developers: Point 1: maybe you miss the point, but input has been, and SHOULD be, requested Point 2: the "Developers" admitted/stated that they NEEDED input, because they don't have specific expertise in Standards I'm not sure if you do, but if so, you should state SPECIFIC input to Standards, and not just generalised comments

(2) WRT this specific comment: "But finally I have to say as an end user I am very happy to use Zotero, and look forward at what the development team will do towards standards. We can contribute input from various points of views here (and this may be quite inconsistent and contain contradictions), but it's up to the real developers to blend this in a fully specified, impeccable CSL schema that will work with Zotero and all CSL using apps out there" I don't see any constructive input here, just trying to throttle other's input. "Real Developers" iomplies there are "NOT REAL" Developers. The idea behind Zotero is it's non-profit, and to some extent, open source in that one can write plugins etc for it. If you want "Real" Developpers to do everything, then perhaps have a look at Endnote.

[WarthogARJ]

Sorry, but this is just not a helpful way to engage. Your expertise is welcome, but only if you can contribute it with an open mind and some humility & respect to the expertise and interest of others. Otherwise, I'd suggest writing your own app.

I've given my input, and support for it. I don't see that it's not "helpful". Facts are facts, no need for any emotive spin.

What's "humilty" got to do with it? Zotero is supposed to be open to suggestions from Users. And especially where expert input can be used. I've given lots of examples and references.

AdamSmith is a "Collaborator", and not a Developer or Maintainer of Zotero. Or as I understand it, a member.

You accuse someone of not being "humble"....??? But who has raised this issue over 10 years ago, and checked back in about it several times, and now has made what are intended to be useful comments.

As far as "writing my own app", and "Developers" etc, who is actually writing code for Zotero in this discussion? Have they made any comments in this thread? Zotero is not open source. It's supported by a non-profit, and they get tax deductions for this.

And it relies on its use by public instututions like universities. Places that place value on free speech. And don't try to stiffle input.

[WarthogARJ]

Here are some examples of citations to standards (in APA Style, 7th Ed.):

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/references/examples/iso-standard-references

I don't see anything super specific or incompatible in the usage of authors field.

FGN

Sure: I don't see any issue with how these are formatted. But it's done manually: not via Zotero. And this is exactly my point: I don't see how the proposed formats for Standard can provide this specific output.

If the new Zotero Standard can provide it is this manner: great.

[adam3smith]

dstillman is Zotero's lead developer. I co-maintain the Citation Style Language, which is responsible for the automated citations produced by Zotero, i.e. directly relevant code for this issue. In fact, the majority of the people posting here have directly contributed to Zotero and/or CSL.

humility is relevant because you can't contribute effectively to a collaborative project if you're not willing to listen to and appreciate what other contributors have to say and that you might on occasion be wrong -- see e.g. your dismissal of Internet standards, Chinese requirements for citing standards, as well as the expertise of developers in how to implement specific metadata and citation requirements in software they've been working on for over 15 years.

[dstillman]

OK, here's what we have:

(And Abstract will likely move in a future redesign, putting Organization immediately below Author.)

[adam3smith]

Looks good to me. The open questions I have from looking again at ISO metadata as well as the discussion & additional detail provided above. For context here's what ISO seems to consider the key metadata for their standards (in addition to number & title) (from this standard)

Based on this:

1. (Technical) Committee: I don't think I've ever seen this cited, but if we do want to capture that information (and both given the inclusion by ISO and the above referent to it it does seem relevant info), I think it'd be weird to add it as a single field contributor(?) (and definitely shouldn't be author where we'd have to work around it in every citation style). We do have the (slightly different but related) committee for hearing, mapped to CSL section. No strong opinion on whether this makes sense to include.
2. Number of pages: ISO provides this and might be nice to capture where it exists since we have good standard Zotero&CSL support? I'd be inclined towards adding this.
3. ICS -- I think the closes analog we have for this are LCSH (also hierarchical, standardized classifiers) so I think automatic tags are probably the way to go here to include those, i.e. nothing to do on that.

I think that's it -- I'm pretty sure this covers all citation examples we have above and a good bit more for eventualities & future developments (and, as for all complex types, obviously doesn't capture the full complexity of available Metadata).

[dstillman]

OK, thanks. I'm fine adding committee below organization and adding numPages. And "Edition" is "Version" (mapped to CSL version) in this case, yes?

[adam3smith]

"Edition" is "Version" (mapped to CSL version) in this case, yes?

Yes, exactly

[KingCZE]

Would you be able to show an example on e.g. ČSN EN 1992-1-2:2006 (73 1201) (Or even funnier ČSN P ENV 1992-1-2:1998 (73 1201)); BS EN ISO 3834-2:2021 - TC; NZS 4541-2020; AS/NZS 4187:2014 A2?

I have my doubts about how universal it really is, and some of the fields are not really clear to me.

Thank you.

[adam3smith]

Title: Quality requirements for fusion welding of metallic materials - Comprehensive quality requirements Number: BS EN ISO 3834-2:2021 - TC Date: 2021-05-31 Organization: BSI ISBN: 978 0 539 17816 6

And optionally Status: Current Committee: WEE/36 Publisher: British Standards Institution URL: https://knowledge.bsigroup.com/products/quality-requirements-for-fusion-welding-of-metallic-materials-comprehensive-quality-requirements-1

The others follow the same logic

[KingCZE]

Title: Quality requirements for fusion welding of metallic materials - Comprehensive quality requirements Number: BS EN ISO 3834-2:2021 - TC Date: 2021-05-31 Organization: BSI ISBN: 978 0 539 17816 6

And optionally Status: Current Committee: WEE/36 Publisher: British Standards Institution URL: https://knowledge.bsigroup.com/products/quality-requirements-for-fusion-welding-of-metallic-materials-comprehensive-quality-requirements-1

The others follow the same logic

So nothing like dividing "Part 2", subpart name, preliminary code (ENV), catalogue / national number (73 1201),... ?

[adam3smith]

Correct. There's no way we're going to disassemble the standard numbers. I understand the individual parts have meaning, but I don't think it makes any sense to store them as individual fields in the context of an app like Zotero.

[iAnyKey]

Does anybody working on a standard template right now?

[adam3smith]

There's no work left afaict. It'll land with the next batch of new item types/fields

[IndefiniteBen]

Is that planned for a specific time, or just when everything is ready?

[iAnyKey]

@dstillman may we ask to release these changes?