the actual work in adding a field is relatively minimal: adding it to the
specs and to the schema is very little work, adding it to the citeprocs a
little more, but afaik not much, either.
The two things that actually take work is:
1. See this through in discussion of the next spec update, including making
the case that this is broadly needed for citations. I'm still unsure about
that, though the NLM example is helpful. It could also be used, together
with the absence of a (print) publication date, as an indicator for
pre-print publication in citations, so that'd be another plus.
2. It would then also have to be taken up by reference managers and that
might be more of an issue. I'm not sure how happy they'd be with two
additional date fields and we'll definitely do original date of
publication.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:44 PM, Maloney, Christopher (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] <
malon...@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov> wrote:
> Following up on this,
>
> Bruce asked:
> > could this reasonably be used by any existing or forthcoming styles?
>
> So, the answer is "yes". As I mentioned, we would like another date
> field, for electronic publication date (article-level) for the NLM style.
> Would it be a huge amount of work? What would be involved? Could we help?
>
>
> Chris Maloney
> NIH/NLM/NCBI (Contractor)
> Building 45, 5AN.24D-22
> 301-594-2842
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rintze Zelle [mailto:rintze.ze...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 12:10 PM
> > To: development discussion for xbiblio
> > Subject: Re: [xbiblio-devel] Multiple publication dates in citations
> >
> > CSL currently uses a fixed set of variables. So if we would decide that
> a new
> > date variable is needed, we would need a new version of CSL (e.g.
> 1.0.2), for
> > which we would have to update the CSL schema and CSL JSON description.
> >
> > Rintze
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Maloney, Christopher (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C]
> > <malon...@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov> wrote:
> > > Is there a forward-compatibility mechanism built into citeproc-json, so
> > that we could add a new field for this without breaking all of the old
> citation
> > processors? I tried adding a randomly-named sibling of 'issued', and
> found
> > that zotero did not like it (rejected it when I tried to import), but
> that
> > citeproc-node/citeproc-js gracefully ignored it.
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Managing the Performance of Cloud-Based Applications
> Take advantage of what the Cloud has to offer - Avoid Common Pitfalls.
> Read the Whitepaper.
>
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=121054471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> xbiblio-devel mailing list
> xbiblio-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
>
--
Sebastian Karcher
Ph.D. Candidate
Department of Political Science
Northwestern University
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Managing the Performance of Cloud-Based Applications
Take advantage of what the Cloud has to offer - Avoid Common Pitfalls.
Read the Whitepaper.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=121054471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
xbiblio-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
