Listed alphabetically by surname of first author, with the following rules for special cases:
alphabetize letter by letter (eg Brown before Browning)
alphabetize prefixes such as Mc and Mac literally (e.g., MacNeil precedes M'Carthy)
alphabetize surnames that contain articles and prepositions according to the rules of the language of origin
alphabetize entries with numerals as if the numerals were spelled out
there are five rules for alphabetizing pubs by the same first author (e.g., exception: if articles are series, they are ordered as a series rather than by title)
there is a set of rules for handling group authors or no authors
for a meta-analysis, included studies are integrated alphabetically in the reference list WITH A ASTERISK PRECEDING IT; statement to precede reference list is "References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis."
Martha
David Wilson wrote:
I think the sorting requirements are determined by the style guide. My "A Manual of Writers" by Kate L. Turabian ( a short version of the Chicago Manual of Style) Says
"In the parenthetical, or author-date, reference systems recommended in this manual, citations in the running text consist of two basic elements - authors' names and dates of publication - usually in parentheses. The full bibliographic details for these cited works are given in a list of references arranged in alphabetically by authors' family names. "
It goes on to discuss sorting of names and incudes "Lists should be arranged letter by letter regardless of upper- and lowercase letters and intervening spaces."
So the sort order is
Braun, Werhner von D'Annunzio, Gabriele de Gaulle, Charles de Kooning, Willem De La Rey, Jacobus Hercules Della Robbia, Luca
I imagine some other style guides have different rules ?
I hope this helps
David
On Tuesday 18 Adar II 5765 11:18 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
cross-posting here ...
I'm working on sorting configuration, but am running into a fundamental design question:
When dealing with reference lists, is the first field always the sort key?
For example, in a typical reference list, the creator name will be the sort key. If there is no creator, there needs to be rules to specify substitutes. For a book, it might be to substitute the phrase "Anonymous." For an article, it might be to substitute the periodical title.
In a cite key style citation class, likewise, it seems the sort key is the citation key; e.g.:
[doe99] Doe, J. ...
Is this a reliable general rule then? Or should instead the layout and the sorting be seen as completely separate?
I'm leaning towards a structure like:
<reftype name="article" sort-key="creator" alternate-sort-key="container-title">
It's possible for me to do some RELAX NG magic and condition the layout of the following elements based on the sort-key value, but I'm not sure I should do that or not.
The other issue I've not resolved is how to handle CDATA, though one solution is to have:
<reftype name="article"> <sort> <primary>creator</primary> <secondary type="variable">container-title</secondary> <!-- "variable" is probably not the right value name, but I can't think of a better one --> </sort>
<reftype name="book"> <sort> <primary>creator</primary> <secondary type="text">Anonymous</secondary> </sort>
Bruce
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
