-
-
Save rmzelle/1029888 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
| NEW | |
| ``disambiguate-add-year-suffix`` [Step (4)] | |
| If set to "true" ("false" is the default), an alphabetic year-suffix is | |
| added to ambiguous cites (e.g. "Doe 2007, Doe 2007" becomes "Doe 2007a, Doe | |
| 2007b") and to their corresponding bibliographic entries. The assignment of | |
| the year-suffixes follows the order of the bibliographies entries, and | |
| additional letters are used once "z" is reached ("z", "aa", "ab", ..., "az", | |
| "ba", etc.). By default the year-suffix is appended to the cite, and to the | |
| first year rendered through ``cs:date`` in the bibliographic entry, but its | |
| location can be controlled by explicitly rendering the "year-suffix" variable | |
| using ``cs:text``. If "year-suffix" is rendered through ``cs:text`` in the | |
| scope of ``cs:citation``, it is suppressed for ``cs:bibliography``, unless | |
| it is also rendered through ``cs:text`` in the scope of ``cs:bibliography``, | |
| and vice versa. | |
| OLD | |
| ``disambiguate-add-year-suffix`` [Step (4)] | |
| If set to "true" ("false" is the default), a year-suffix is added to | |
| ambiguous cites (e.g. "Doe 2007, Doe 2007" becomes "Doe 2007a, Doe 2007b"). | |
| The placement of the year-suffix, by default appended to each cite, can be | |
| controlled by explictly rendering the "year-suffix" variable using | |
| ``cs:text``. |
I've added two variants, with more and with less information in the citations. The year suffixes applied differ in each case, which is the expected behavior.
As a side note, in a recent trawl through old correspondence, I noticed a comment by Simon, two years ago, that disambiguation queries were one of the most frequent topics raised on the forums. That's no longer the case -- queries are now rare, and invariably resolved with a link to the disambiguation section of the wiki on zotero.org. I take that as evidence that we have gotten this right.
APA: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/06/ (at "Two or More Works by the Same Author in the Same Year")
This is what still has me uneasy; i just have never taken the view that suffix behavior has anything to do with the details of the cites.
In the absence of cites, year-suffixes are useless in bibliographies, even in cases where bibliographic entries would otherwise be identical, as they don't add any information. Their value is in establishing a unique and therefore unambiguous pointer/cite to a bibliographic entry.
There is also a relevant APA snippet at http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/03/, again under "Two or More Works by the Same Author in the Same Year"
In any case, I do suggest clarifying the proposed spec language by expanding the first sentence. E.g.:
If set to "true" ("false" is the default), applies to conditions where there are multiple items from the same author and year. Under these conditions, an alphabetic year-suffix is added to each of these bibliographic items, and to their corresponding cites (e.g. "Doe 2007, Doe 2007" becomes "Doe 2007a, Doe 2007b"). [insert exceptions, or further explanation]
+1
That's not precise enough. Year-suffixes can be required even when the names aren't the same. E.g. (Doe 2000a, b) for a style that doesn't do name disambiguation, and has to disambiguate papers, one by John and one by Jane Doe.
If that's true, then there may be two different rules to create a
suffix, and so consequently both of us are also wrong (your
explanation does not work for APA and Chicago, and mine doesn't work
for Elsevier, etc.).
There might be, but again, we haven't seen any examples that are not correctly handled under the existing specification. The APA, Chicago and Elsevier guides describe disambiguation in different language, but as they are editorial guides (rather than specification documents), none of them dictate a comprehensive set of mandatory rules, complete with a description of the logical sequence of operations needed for machine-driven disambiguation. The question should not be whether these guides can be read to require output that CSL is incapable of producing, but whether copy editors actually do read them in that way. It never hurts to gather more information about editorial processes, but at the moment we have zero evidence of that.
That's not precise enough. Year-suffixes can be required even when the names aren't the same. E.g (Doe 2000a, b) for a style that doesn't do name disambiguation, and has to disambiguate papers, one by John and one by Jane Doe.
True, but the examples are sensible. Perhaps Bruce would be willing to see the text amended to read "multiple cites to the same author and year"?
I'll have to think about it a bit more.
The description of "disambiguate-add-year-suffix" should only discuss the reason for disambiguation if it differs from the reason for the other disambiguation options. Any shared requirements that activate disambiguation should be discussed in the introduction of the disambiguation section of the spec.
Would it be correct to say that, for all disambiguation methods, except for "disambiguate-add-givenname" with "givenname-disambiguation-rule" set to "all-names", "all-names-with-initials", "primary-name", or "primary-name-with-initials", disambiguation is performed to create an unambiguous link between the cite and the target bibliographic entry?
Yes. In those four cases, adding initials or full given names is more aggressive than strictly necessary for resolving cite/bib ambiguities. If one were to be picky, it would be a little more accurate to say "disambiguation is performed only when needed to create an unambiguous link between the cite and the target bibliographic entry".
All of the names in the input data are different, although the initials for families Doe, Jones and Smith are all the same. If the initialize-with attribute is removed from the cs:name node in cs:citation, the year suffixes will disappear from the output, despite the fact that the entries are ambiguous in the bibliography.
That result is due to the underlying assumption I stated above, that the bibliography entries contain enough information to identify each entry uniquely, and that cites contain less information. Removing initialize-with from the cs:citation name node would violate that expectation -- the cites would then contain more information than is available in the bibliography. That may seem at first blush to be a troublesome case, but it's one that we can safely ignore, since bibliographies and their companion cites are never set up that way in production.