volume-title

[adam3smith]

http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/26476/helpfeature-request-individual-volumes-as-parts-of-multivolume-works/#Item_3

Examples from Chicago Manual include: Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Vol. 1, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971.

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/ch14/ch14_sec124.html

and

Barrows, Herbert. Reading the Short Story. Vol. 1 of An Introduction to Literature, edited by Gordon N. Ray. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1959.

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/ch14/ch14_sec127.html

Note that these are different from (and can, in fact co-occur with) series and series title.

Proposal: add a field "Volume Title" to Book and Book Section, map it to new CSL variable "volume-title"

This could be combined with https://github.com/ajlyon/zotero-bits/issues/36 - if we create a field "Issue Title" we can use that as an indicator of a special issue and map it to the same volume-title CSL variable.

[fbennett]

This looks good to me.

In passing, this issue reminds me of a slightly different wrinkle in the legal styles. Case reports that use the year as a primary volume number are formatted differently from those that use a normal series starting from 1:

Bunt v Tilley [2006] 3 All ER 336 (QB) Fucella v Ricker (1982) 35 OR (2d) 423 (H Ct J)

In the All England Reports, the year is the primary volume number. In the official reports of Ontario, the volume numbering starts from 1, and the year signifies only the year in which it is published. In the MLZ styles, I have addressed this by using "collection-number" to hold the year-as-volume.

It's a different use case, and I'll be sticking with collection-number for this particular purpose (sometimes the volume is a span of years, and a numeric variable is needed to produce correct output); but I thought I would mention it in case the same issue arises with journals outside of the legal domain.

[zuphilip]

The volume-title should also be added for paper-conference, entry-dictionary, entry-encyclopedia which are "subtypes" of chapter.

[denismaier]

If we add this, this should indeed be also added for the item types @zuphilip mentioned. However, I am a bit inclined to support @njbart's view expressed here. Seems a bit more easier to handle because the hierarchy is clearer. If we use volume-title instead, title could refer to a particular book or to a multivolume unit.

The other question is if both variants in CMoS can somehow be accomodated.

1. Title. Vol. 1, Volume Title
2. Volume Title. Vol. 1 of Title

[denismaier]

Oh but yeah, CSL-M already has Volume title, and (interestingly) pandoc-citeproc also supports volume title already.

[denismaier]

What shall we do about this? The general idea was accepted, right? If yes, let's move it to accepted. Concerning implementation: What about @njbart's proposal? I still think that would be a better solution. Any opinions?

[bdarcus]

@denismaier I'm getting a bit lost on that ticket, and how to compare it to this. Are you capable of summarizing that concisely?

Is it, for example, that instead of adding volume-title we should add collective-title?

Is that the debate, with the idea that the latter is broader than the proposal here?

If we add that, what impact, if any, would it have on existing styles?

If no impact, when is my impression, then I suggest we accept @njbart's proposal, and therefore to add a single collective-title variable to the schema, but not the volume-title + specification language that includes some of the examples from his proposal.

[denismaier]

Ok, to sum up: We need a way to properly cite multivolume works. That seems to be a general consensus.

The other question is if we introduce volume-title or collective-title, i.e., if we introduce a new field above or below title.

Volume-title is already valid in CSL-M and also recognized by pandoc-citeproc, which obviously speaks for this solution.

On the other, I think collective-title is a better solution in conceptual terms. As @njbart points out that would conform to the principle that title is used for the most specific unit. Using volume-title would be a bit like using title for the title of a journal, and using article-title for the title of the article. It somehow turns things upside down. (In the end, it will work nevertheless as it is just the question of using one name or the other.)

Concerning coding the styles, the difference is perhaps not huge. Depending on the desired output, the testing must occur in different places.

I don't think there's any impact on existing styles. Both solution will just introduce a new variable that style editors can use. I guess users will have workarounds in place, like having both the title of a volume and the multi-volume work as a whole in the title field.

[bwiernik]

This was resolved by adding volume-title to CSL.