summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/info/digests/texline/no10/talk.tex
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'info/digests/texline/no10/talk.tex')
-rw-r--r--info/digests/texline/no10/talk.tex854
1 files changed, 854 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/info/digests/texline/no10/talk.tex b/info/digests/texline/no10/talk.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..5dad0e02ea
--- /dev/null
+++ b/info/digests/texline/no10/talk.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,854 @@
+\overfullrule0pt
+\def\\{\hfil\break}
+\font\ttt=cmtt10
+\def\tt{\ttt\hyphenpenalty10000}
+\def\subsection#1{\leftline{\let\sc\scit\sl #1}\par\noindent\ignorespaces}
+
+\let\subsubsection\subsection
+\def\BibTeXi{B{\iteight IB}\kern-.2em\TeX}
+\font\sb=cmbx8
+\def\BbiBTeX{B{\sb IB}\kern-.2em\TeX}
+\hyphenation{abbrv}
+
+\centerline{\bf Towards \BbiBTeX\ style-files that implement}
+\centerline{\bf principal standards}
+\section{1: Introduction}
+\BibTeX\ can relieve an author of a lot of the work that is
+traditionally involved in compiling a list of references. The
+public domain bibliography style-files certainly produce neat
+bibliographies.
+
+However, documents often have to conform to a house style, to the conventions
+within a subject, or to an externally defined standard. \BibTeX\ users may
+not always be working in the same subject areas as \BibTeX's originators.
+This article considers the extent to which \BibTeX\ and the public domain
+style files are suited to this more exacting task.
+
+\section{2: Standard conventions}
+% Recall what speaker (a) said about the standard conventions [2 mins]
+% (reference-by-number, author-date)
+`Reading between the lines' of the \LaTeX\ manual suggests to me that
+the main influences behind the \LaTeX/\BibTeX\ scheme for
+classifying bibliographic references were van Leunen's book (van Leunen, 1978),
+and the precedent set by {\it Scribe}.
+
+However, I have the impression that the `principal standards' for
+citations and bibliographies are generally those defined by Butcher's book
+(Butcher, 1981), the relevant British Standards
+(BSI, 1989; BSI, 1983; BSI, 1978),
+and the {`Chicago Manual of Style'} (Chicago Manual of Style, 1982), rather
+than van Leunen's and {\it Scribe\/}'s conventions.
+
+
+
+This impression derives partly from the numbers of times that I've seen
+citations of the works concerned. I've only seen van Leunen cited by
+the \LaTeX\ manual, whereas
+Butcher's book is cited by Hart (1983), BSI (1988),
+Chicago Manual of Style (1982) and Williamson (1983);
+the British Standards are cited by BSI (1988), Butcher (1981),
+ McLean (1980) and Williamson (1983);
+the {`Chicago Manual of Style'} is cited by Butcher (1981),
+ Turabian (1987), Williamson (1983) and Lamport (1986), and
+ forms part of the `instructions for authors' for the journal
+ {\it Electronic publishing: origination, dissemination \& design}.
+BS 1629 also seems to correspond to an ISO standard.
+More parochially, the British Standards are mentioned in various Nottingham
+University guidelines about theses and dissertations.
+
+Therefore, it seems more important to help authors
+conform to the recommendations of Butcher's book,
+the British Standards and the {`Chicago Manual of Style'}, than to
+help them conform to van Leunen's recommendations and the {\it Scribe}
+precedent. This may involve supporting the author-date
+(`Chicago Manual of Style', 1982; BSI, 1978; Butcher, 1981),
+reference-by-number (BSI, 1978; Butcher, 1981)
+and short-title schemes (Butcher, 1981).
+There is also an author-number system (Butcher, 1981), but it does not
+seem to be used much.
+
+
+
+\caption{Table 1: BS~1629(1976)/6371 entry types compared with
+\BbiBTeX's}\smallskip
+\def\hline{\noalign{\hrule}}
+\tabskip0pt\halign
+{\offinterlineskip\strut\vrule\enspace\tabskip=0.5em#\hfil&#\hfil&\tabskip0pt#\hfil\tabskip0pt\vrule\cr
+\hline Category & Subcategory & Nearest \BibTeX \cr
+ & & entry-type \cr
+\hline
+Book & Single-vol. work & {\tt book}, {\tt booklet}, \cr
+or other & & {\tt manual} or \cr
+separately & & {\tt proceedings} \cr
+issued & Multi-vol. work & {\tt book} \cr
+publication & British Standard & {\tt techreport} \cr
+ & Technical report & {\tt techreport} \cr
+ & Translation & \cr
+ & Govt. publicn. & \cr
+\hline
+Portion of & & {\tt inbook}, \cr
+above, other & & {\tt incollection}, \cr
+than sep. & & {\tt inproceedings} \cr
+contribution & & \cr
+\hline
+Periodical or & Periodical as & \cr
+other serial & a whole. & \cr
+publication & & \cr
+ & Limited run or & \cr
+ & specific vol. & \cr
+ & or issue & \cr
+\hline
+Article or & in book or\dots & {\tt incollection}, \cr
+contribution & & {\tt inproceedings} \cr
+ &in periodical\dots& {\tt article} \cr
+\hline
+Patent & Patentee and & \cr
+ & inventor & \cr
+ & & \cr
+ & Patentee only & {\tt techreport} \cr
+\hline
+Unpublished & & {\tt booklet}, \cr
+ & & {\tt mastersthesis},\cr
+ & & {\tt phdthesis}, \cr
+ & & {\tt misc} \cr
+\hline
+}
+
+\section{3: Assumptions and abbreviations}
+The remainder of this article will assume that the conventions
+described in Butcher's book,
+the British Standards and the {`Chicago Manual of Style'} are indeed the
+`principal standards', and that the \BibTeX\ user
+wants to be able to produce documents that conform to them.
+(Take care to distinguish this use of `standard' from the \LaTeX\ manual's
+use of `standard' to mean `{\tt plain}, {\tt unsrt}, {\tt alpha} or
+{\tt abbrv}'.)
+
+
+The following abbreviations will be used:
+\item{BS:} a British Standard, or a combination of British Standards;
+\item{Chicago:} the {`Chicago Manual of Style'};
+\item{public domain styles:} {\tt plain}, {\tt unsrt}, {\tt alpha},
+ {\tt abbrv}, {\tt aaai}, {\tt acm}, {\tt ieeetr}, {\tt siam} and
+ {\tt apalike};
+\item{principal standards:} the conventions for citation and bibliography
+ layout specified by Butcher (1981), the British Standards
+ (1989; 1983; 1978) and the {`Chicago Manual of Style'}
+ (1982).
+
+
+\section{4: The problem of divergence}
+% On the assumption that attendees have some handouts [5 mins]
+% of output from Patashnik's and other public domain style files,
+% review the extent to which they meet standards such as the BSI and
+% Chicago.
+\subsection{4.1: Categories of document}
+Table 1
+%\ref{1}
+compares the classification of documents used
+for the British Standards
+with the classification used by the public domain \BibTeX\ styles.
+The table assumes that, where the 1989 edition
+says that `other information may be added in whatever position is most
+appropriate', one would actually put the information where specified by
+the 1976 edition. Table 2
+%\ref{2}
+gives a similar comparison for
+Chicago. You will see that in neither case is there a one-to-one mapping
+between the `\BibTeX\ category' and the `principal standard' category.
+Thus, if the \BibTeX\ user wishes to conform to the `principal standards',
+(s)he starts with the handicap of not being clear about which section
+of the \BibTeX\ documentation corresponds to the required
+section of the specification of a `principal standard'.
+
+\caption{Table 2: Chicago entry types compared with \BbiBTeX's
+}{\smallskip
+\offinterlineskip\tabskip0pt\halign
+{\strut\vrule\enspace\tabskip=1em#\hfil&#\hfil&\tabskip0pt#\hfil\tabskip0pt\vrule\cr
+\hline Category & Subcategory & Nearest \BibTeX \cr
+ & & entry-type \cr
+\hline
+Book & & {\tt book}, {\tt manual}, \cr
+ & & {\tt techreport} \cr
+ & & {\tt booklet}, \cr
+ & & {\tt proceedings} \cr
+\omit\vrule\tabskip1em&\multispan2{\hrulefill\hskip1em}\vrule \cr
+ & [chapters & {\tt inbook}, \cr
+ & \hfil or parts] & {\tt incollection}, \cr
+ & &{\tt inproceedings} \cr
+\hline
+J'n'l article & & {\tt article} \cr
+\hline
+Unpublished & Theses, & {\tt mastersthesis}, \cr
+material & lectures & {\tt phdthesis}, \cr
+ & and other & {\tt manual}, {\tt misc}, \cr
+ & unpublished & {\tt booklet}, \cr
+ & works & {\tt manual}, \cr
+ & & {\tt techreport} \cr
+ & Manuscript & {\tt unpublished}, \cr
+ & collections. & {\tt misc} \cr
+\hline
+Public & United States & {\tt unpublished}, \cr
+ documents & UK, Canada, & {\tt misc} \cr
+ & International & \cr
+ & \hfil Bodies & \cr
+\hline
+Nonbook & \hbox to 0pt{Musical scores} &{\tt misc} \cr
+materials & \hbox to 0pt{Sound recording} & \cr
+ & \hbox to 0pt{Video recordings} & \cr
+ & \hbox to 0pt{Computer programs}& \cr
+\hline
+}}
+\medskip
+\subsection{4.2: Elements of reference}
+Similarly, there is no one-to-one mapping between the elements of a reference as
+defined by the `principal standards' and the fields used by
+the current public domain \BibTeX\ bibliography styles:
+\item{\tt address} is used in three different senses.
+\itemitem{1}For `published works', one would presumably use \BibTeX's
+ {\tt address} for the `place
+ of publication'.
+ \itemitem{2} For `unpublished works', one would use {\tt address} as
+`locator
+ element' (BS 6371) or `location or sponsoring body' (Chicago,
+ Section 16.129).
+ \itemitem{3} For {\tt proceedings} and {\tt inproceedings}, {\tt address}
+ is used in \BibTeX\ 0.99 as `where the conference was held',
+ which the principal standards would probably treat as part
+ of the title.
+ In case 1, one might use \BibTeX's {\tt unpublished}, {\tt misc}, etc.\
+ for the principal standards' `unpublished works', so
+ there is probably an overlap of the function of {\tt address}
+ with that of {\tt howpublished}.
+\item{\tt month} does not seem to appear as such in the `principal standards'.
+ It is sometimes necessary to use `date' as a means of specifying
+ a particular issue (BS 1629 (1976 edn.), Section 4.4(b); Chicago, Section 16.124),
+ but the {\tt month} field is not quite suitable.
+ The non-obvious
+\begintt
+month = jul # "~4,"
+\endtt
+ trick has to be used.
+\item{\tt volume} It is not clear from the documentation
+ whether the public domain styles distinguish between
+ `a volume of a single work'
+ and `a single work that is a volume in a series'.
+ Chicago shows variation of positioning between the two cases.
+\item{\tt portion} Chicago 16.49--16.53 mentions the specification
+ of chapters, parts or page-ranges.
+ BS 1629 (1976 edn.) has the concept of `portion' for these specifications.
+ `Specifying a portion' would be easier than getting involved
+ in tricks like
+\begintt
+chapter = "1.2", type = "Section"
+\endtt
+ with \BibTeX's |chapter| and |type| fields.
+
+\noindent In summary,
+the following groups seem to be merged in the principal standards:
+ {\tt booklet}, {\tt manual}, and {\tt proceedings};
+ {\tt conference}, {\tt incollection} and {\tt inproceedings};
+ {\tt mastersthesis} and {\tt phdthesis}.
+The following \BibTeX\ fields seem to hold information that
+ the principal standards would handle differently:
+ {\tt address} and {\tt howpublished};
+ {\tt institution}, {\tt month}, {\tt organization} and {\tt school}.
+The principal standards don't seem to involve the concepts of
+ `open' and `closed'.
+\medskip
+\subsection{4.3: Order and presentation of elements}
+Given the divergence between the schemes used for classification and
+element-definition, it is difficult to make a general comparison of
+features such as the order of elements, their punctuation and the
+fonts used. However,
+we can make such a comparison in simple cases, for example in the
+cases of references to books and to articles.
+
+If you compare BS (1989) and Chicago (1982, p.439), you
+will see that there is a degree of consensus about the style in which
+references to books are to be laid out for reference-by-number.
+Unfortunately, none of the relevant public domain styles
+({\tt plain}, {\tt unsrt}, {\tt abbrv}, {\tt aaai},
+{\tt acm}, {\tt ieeetr}, {\tt siam})
+format entries in line with this consensus.
+
+For reference-by-number to journal articles, BS and Chicago differ in the order
+suggested for volume and year. Of the public domain styles, {\tt acm} seems
+closest to Chicago. Nothing seems particularly close to the BS.
+
+The public domain author-date styles are {\tt alpha}, {\tt apalike}
+and {\tt aaai}. Of these, {\tt alpha} has unconventional labels,
+and {\tt aaai} gives an unconventional bibliography (with both the
+short form of author-date and the long form). The remaining
+style, {\tt apalike} seems fairly similar to BS and Chicago for
+journal articles, but not for books (because of the order of place
+and publisher).
+\medskip
+
+\frame{5pt}{The {\tt \lowercase{MASTERSTHESIS}} and {\tt \lowercase{PHDTHESIS}}
+entry types now take an optional {\tt type} field\dots
+
+Similarly, the {\tt \lowercase{INBOOK}} and {\tt \lowercase{INCOLLECTION}} entry types
+now take an optional {\tt type} field, allowing `section 1.2' instead of the default
+`chapter 1.2'.
+
+\dots{\tt \lowercase{PROCEEDINGS}}\dots\
+If you want to include the publisher's\dots\ address, put it in the
+{\tt publisher} or {\tt organization} field.
+
+\dots feel free to be creative in how you use these entry types\dots
+
+
+\dots don't take the field names too seriously\dots
+
+\dots don't take the warning messages too seriously\dots
+
+\dots if you want to include information for the day of the month,
+\dots
+{\tt month = jul \char'43\ "\char'176 4,"}
+will probably produce just what you want.
+}
+\nobreak
+\caption{Figure 1: Some hints from `\BbiBTeX ing'}
+\medskip
+\subsection{4.4: Consequences}
+Thus, although \BibTeX\ is very useful for reducing the work involved in
+producing a bibliography, and the public domain styles produce
+neat bibliographies we have to note that
+the entry-types and fields used by the public domain styles diverge
+ from the document-categories and reference-elements
+ those used by the principal standards. This may mean
+ that one has to resort to tricks (such as those shown in Figure
+1,
+%\ref{1}
+taken from Patashnik (1988a)
+ to get the output `looking right'.
+ I imagine that, if the entry-types and fields
+ corresponded more closely to those used by the principal standards,
+ one would have to resort to tricks less often.
+In addition, the punctuation and fonts used by the
+ public domain styles will lead many potential users to
+ quibble that `this is not how we do things in my subject'.
+
+\section{5: Towards `principal standard' styles}
+\subsection{5.1: Extent of consensus about}
+\rightline{\sl categories\slash entry-types}
+\noindent Thus the current public domain styles, and the corresponding
+ entry-types and fields, do not seem to make for straightforward adherance to
+the `principal standards'. How could new entry-types and fields be defined
+that correspond more closely to the assumptions behind the `principal
+standards'?
+
+\topinsert
+\hsize6.5truein\tabskip0pt
+\def\hline{\noalign{\hrule}}{
+\offinterlineskip\halign to\hsize{\tabskip=2em
+minus1em\vrule\strut\enspace#\hfil&&\enspace#\hfil&#\hfil\tabskip0pt\vrule\cr
+\noalign{\hrule} BS & BS & Chicago &Chicago &
+Examples common to\cr category & subcategory & category
+&subcategory & BS and Chicago \cr \noalign{\hrule} Book or other & Single-vol.\
+work & Book & All but `chapters & Book \cr separately & Multi-vol.\ work
+& & or parts' & Technical report$^a$ \cr issued &
+British Standard & & &UK HMSO pub. \cr publication &
+Technical report & & & \cr
+ & Translation & & & \cr
+ & Government pub.& & & \cr
+\multispan2{\vrule\hfill}&\multispan2{\hrulefill}&\omit\hfill\vrule\cr%\cline{3-4}
+ & &Public docs. & UK nonparliamentary$^b$
+& \cr \noalign{\hrule}
+Contribution & In book\dots & Book & Chapters or parts
+ & Collections \cr
+or article & & & & Conf. proceedings\cr
+\omit\vrule\hfill&\multispan4{\hrulefill}\cr%\cline{2-5}
+ &In periodical\dots& Journal article & & Article \cr
+ & & & & \cr
+\noalign{\hrule}
+Unpublished & & Unpublished & Lectures &British Lib. Add. MS.\cr
+ & & & Duplicated material &Theses$^c$ \cr
+ & & & Manuscript colls. & \cr
+\multispan2{\vrule\hfill}&\multispan2{\hrulefill}\cr%\cline{3-4}
+ & & Public docs. & USA unpublished & \cr
+ & & & UK unpublished & \cr
+ & & & Canadian archives & \cr
+\omit\vrule\hfill&\multispan1{\hrulefill}\cr%%\cline{2-2}
+ &Docs. resembling& & & \cr
+ &published works & & & \cr
+\noalign{\hrule}}}
+
+\noindent\strut{$^a$ For technical reports, BS says that `series
+ title and number' are `essential elements'.}
+
+\noindent{$^b$ Chicago says that these are usually treated
+ like `privately published books'.}
+
+\hangindent20pt\noindent{$^c$ BS suggests that theses
+ resemble published works, should have
+ `location element' like other unpublished material,
+ but should be given a `descriptive element'
+ like books.
+ Chicago suggests treating title as for a journal article, and providing
+ `location or sponsoring body or both'.}
+\caption{Table 3: BS 1629(1976)/6371 and Chicago categories that are similar}
+\endinsert
+
+Table 3 displays some BS and Chicago categories that
+seem similar enough to be represented by common \BibTeX\ entry-types.
+Table 4 shows categories that are only described
+by the British Standards, while Table 5 shows
+categories that are only described by Chicago.
+Thus any new scheme should, ideally, be able to cater for all the
+categories shown in Tables 3, 4 and 5.
+One would also have to refer to ISO 690.
+Compatibility with bibliographic databases on CD-ROMs might
+be useful too, but there currently seems little consistency between suppliers,
+let alone consistency between conventions for fields in CD-ROMs and
+fields in printed bibliographies. It might also be useful to consider the
+database structure used for computerised library catalogues.
+
+\caption{\overfullrule0pt Table 4: Categories defined by BS 1629(1976)\slash 6371 but
+not by Chicago} {\overfullrule0pt\offinterlineskip
+\def\hline{\noalign{\hrule}}
+\overfullrule=0pt
+\tabskip0pt
+\halign
+to\hsize{\vrule\strut\tabskip3em
+minus2.5em\enspace#\hfil&#\hfil\strut\tabskip0pt\vrule\cr \hline
+Category & Subcategory \cr
+\hline
+Portion of `book or other & \cr
+separately issued publication' & \cr
+other than a separate & \cr
+contribution & \cr
+\hline
+Periodical or other serial & Periodical as \cr
+publication & a whole \cr
+\omit\vrule\hfill&\omit\hrulefill\quad\tabskip0pt\cr
+ & Limited run or \cr
+ & specific vol. \cr
+ & or issue \cr
+\hline
+Patent & Patentee and \cr
+ & inventor \cr
+\omit\vrule\hfill&\omit\hrulefill\quad\vrule\tabskip0pt \cr
+ & {Patentee only} \cr
+\hline
+}}
+\medskip
+\caption{Table 5: Categories defined by Chicago but not by BS
+1629(1976)/6371}
+{\overfullrule=20pt\offinterlineskip
+\tabskip=0pt
+\halign
+to \hsize{\vrule\strut\enspace\tabskip=3em
+minus2.5em#\hfil&#\hfil\tabskip=0pt\vrule\cr \hline Category & Subcategory
+\cr \hline
+Public documents & US Congress \cr
+ & US Executive departments \cr
+ & US Statutes etc. \cr
+ & US States and local \cr
+ & UK Parliament \cr
+ & US Published records \cr
+ & Canadian government\cr
+ & International Bodies \cr
+\hline
+ Nonbook materials&Musical scores$^a$ \cr
+ & Sound recordings \cr
+ & Video recordings \cr
+ & Computer programs \cr
+\hline}}
+\noindent{\strut$^a$ `Follow rules similar to those for books.'}
+
+\medskip
+\subsection{5.2: A division into categories/entry-types}{\tolerance10000
+From Tables 3, 4, 5,
+it seems that a project to provide style-files to implement the
+`principal standards' might start by defining entry-types such as the following.
+\item{\tt booklike} The categories of document specified in Section 4.2(a)
+ (publication as a whole) of BS 1629 (1976 edn.) (with the exception
+ of `works issued in series by research bodies\dots').
+ This seems the same as the group of documents
+ classified as `Books' by Chicago (excluding
+ Chicago's `chapters or parts of a book').
+ This category might include some of Chicago's
+ `Nonbook materials', e.g. musical scores.
+\item{\tt report} Publications `as a whole' issued in series by research
+ bodies and similar organizations, as specified in
+ Section 4.2(a) of BS 1629 (1976 edn.).
+ Differs only from {\tt booklike} in that
+ `series title and number' are required.
+\item{\tt booklikeportion} A portion (other than a separate contribution) of
+ a document in the category specified in Section 4.2(b)
+ of BS 1629 (1976 edn.) (excluding documents for which `series title
+ and number' are required).
+ (Looks as if it could be implemented by a {\tt
+crossref} to a {\tt booklike} database entry.)
+ Probably equivalent to the optional argument of
+ |\cite|, but worth doing to give the ability to
+ conform to BS 1629 (1976 edn.).
+\item{\tt reportportion} As {\tt booklikeportion} but with
+ `series title and number' required.
+\item{\tt contribution} Contribution to a `book or other separately issued
+ publication' as defined in Section 4.4(a) of BS 1629 (1976 edn.).
+ `Chapter or part of a book' as defined in Sections
+ 16.49--16.53 of Chicago.
+\item{\tt publishedlike} `Documents resembling published works' as specified
+ in Section 10 of BS 6371.
+ This category would include theses. It looks as
+though:
+ \itemitem{\it (i)} the thesis information that BS 6371 would
+use to `compile the descriptive element like a book'
+ is the same as that needed for
+ Chicago to treat the thesis like a journal article
+\itemitem{\it (ii)} the BS 6371 `location element' is much the
+same as the Chicago `location or sponsoring body
+ or both'.
+ This category might also include some of Chicago's
+ `nonbook materials', e.g. sound recordings.
+\item{\tt patent} Patents, as specified in Section 4.5 of BS 1629 (1976
+edn.).
+\item{\tt public} Public documents, as specified in Section 16.141 of
+ Chicago, but excluding those `cited like
+ privately published books' (Chicago, Section 16.162)
+ which would be {\tt booklike} and those
+ to which BS 6371 (except Section 10)
+ and Sections 16.158, 16.171 and 16.172
+ of Chicago apply (which would be {\tt unpublished}).
+\item{\tt unpublished}
+ To which BS 6371 (except Section 10)
+ and Sections 16.128, 16.131--16.133,
+ 16.158, 16.171 and 16.172
+ of Chicago apply.
+\item{\tt periodical} As defined in Section 4.3(a) of BS 1629 (1976 edn.).
+
+\item{\tt periodicalrun} As defined in Section 4.3(b) of BS 1629 (1976 edn.).
+ Might be implemented as a {\tt crossref} to
+ a {\tt periodical}.
+\item{\tt article} This category would include `a contribution
+ or article in a periodical or serial publication'
+ (Section 4.4(b) of BS 1629 (1976 edn.)), and `journal articles'
+ (Chicago, Sections 16.98--16.127).
+\smallskip}
+\noindent
+As it happens, this approach gives 12 categories, compared with
+the 14 for {\tt plain}, {\tt unsrt}, {\tt alpha}, {\tt abbrv}.
+(Studying the unified approach in the 1989 edition of
+BS 1629 might enable one to reduce the number of categories still further.
+On the other hand, the sentences about `Other information may be added
+in whatever position is most appropriate' may lead to retention of the
+categories suggested in the 1976 edition, in order to ensure that
+`other information' is placed appropriately.)
+\medskip
+\subsection{5.3: Elements/fields}
+A project that aimed to implement the `principal standards' would also have to
+define \BibTeX\ fields (within the bibliography entries) that correspond
+to the `elements of a bibliographic reference' defined by the `principal
+standards'.
+
+With the British Standards, it may be possible to use
+the BS `essential' and `supplementary' or `optional' elements
+directly as \BibTeX's required and optional fields.
+It looks as if these elements would provide the information required by
+Chicago, but someone would have to work through all the Chicago examples
+to check this!
+To support the `short title' system (Butcher, 1981; pp. 177--8),
+a field such as {\tt shorttitle} seems desirable.
+
+This approach might give fields such as the following for the entry-types
+postulated above.
+{\tolerance10000
+\item{\tt booklike}
+ Required fields: {\tt author}, {\tt title}, {\tt year}.
+ Optional fields: {\tt shorttitle}, {\tt transtitle},
+ {\tt origtitle}, {\tt edition}, {\tt alleditor},
+ {\tt alltranslator}, {\tt allillustrator}, {\tt thiseditor},
+ {\tt thistranslator}, {\tt thisillustrator}, {\tt placeofpub},
+ {\tt publisher}, {\tt noofvols}, {\tt pagination},
+ {\tt mentionofany}, {\tt size}, {\tt seriesinfo},
+ {\tt isbn}, {\tt price}.
+ Here {\tt author} may be `compiler, personal or corporate'.
+ The meanings of other fields should be obvious by reference to BS 1629 (1976 edn.).
+\item{\tt report}
+ As {\tt booklike}, but with {\tt seriesinfo} required, rather than
+ optional.
+\item{\tt booklikeportion}
+ Same fields as {\tt booklike} except that:
+ `book trade' information, namely
+ {\tt alleditor},
+ {\tt alltranslator}, {\tt allillustrator}, {\tt thiseditor}, {\tt
+thistranslator}, {\tt thisillustrator}, {\tt noofvols}, {\tt pagination},
+ {\tt mentionofany}, {\tt size}, {\tt price}
+ are neither required nor optional.
+ \item {\tt volpart} and {\tt volparttitle} would be optional
+ and {\tt portion} would be required.
+
+\item{\tt reportportion}
+ As {\tt booklikeportion} but with {\tt seriesinfo} required rather than
+ optional.
+\item{\tt contribution} Required fields: {\tt contauthor}, {\tt
+conttitle},
+ {\tt pubauthor} or {\tt pubeditor}, {\tt pubtitle},
+ {\tt year}, {\tt portion}.
+ Optional fields: {\tt shorttitle},
+ {\tt conttranstitle}, {\tt contorigtitle},
+ {\tt contmentionofany}, {\tt pubtranstitle}, {\tt pubedition},
+ {\tt pubvolume}, {\tt placeofpub}, {\tt publisher},
+ {\tt seriesinfo}, {\tt isbn}.
+\item{\tt publishedlike}
+ Fields for `descriptive element' as for {\tt booklike}, with
+ the omission of {\tt placeofpub}, {\tt publisher}, {\tt isbn}.
+ Fields for `location element' as for {\tt unpublished} -- see below.
+\item{\tt patent}
+ Required fields: {\tt patentee}, {\tt title}, {\tt country},
+ {\tt designation}, {\tt serialno}, {\tt pubyear}, {\tt restofpubdate}.
+ Optional fields: {\tt shorttitle},
+ {\tt transtitle}, {\tt inventor},
+ {\tt intclass}, {\tt natclass}, {\tt appdate},
+ {\tt pagination}, {\tt platesetc}.
+\item{\tt public} Following Chicago (Section 16.141), fields for
+ {\tt division}, {\tt body}, {\tt subsid}, {\tt title},
+ {\tt author}, {\tt identification},
+ {\tt publisher}, {\tt date}. In addition, an optional
+ {\tt shorttitle} field, for `short title' citation.
+\item{\tt unpublished}
+ Descriptive element, consisting of optional fields {\tt name},
+ {\tt title}, {\tt date}, {\tt designation}.
+ Location element, consisting of optional fields {\tt place},
+ {\tt repository}, {\tt callno}, {\tt locwithin}.
+ Although the individual fields of the
+ descriptive element and the location element are optional,
+ the descriptive element and the location element are both
+ `required' as a whole.
+ In addition, optional fields {\tt otherinfo} (for Section 9 of BS 6371) and
+ {\tt shorttitle} for `short title' citation.
+\item{\tt periodical} Required field: {\tt title}.
+ Optional fields: {\tt transtitle}, {\tt origtitle}, {\tt firstissue},
+ {\tt lastissue}, {\tt frequency}, {\tt placeofpub}, {\tt publisher},
+ {\tt size}, {\tt summarylangs}, {\tt price}, {\tt earliertitles}.
+\item{\tt periodicalrun}
+ Required fields: {\tt title}, {\tt firstissue}, {\tt lastissue}.
+ Optional fields: {\tt transtitle}, {\tt origtitle},
+ {\tt frequency}, {\tt placeofpub}, {\tt publisher},
+ {\tt size}, {\tt summarylangs}, {\tt price}.
+\item{\tt article}
+ Required fields: {\tt author}, {\tt arttitle}, {\tt serialtitle},
+ {\tt year}, {\tt volume}, {\tt portion}.
+ Optional fields: {\tt transtitle}, {\tt origtitle}, {\tt mentionofany},
+ {\tt placeofpub}, {\tt part}.
+\par}
+
+% Critique bit: "Marie Clare van Leunen had undue influence. [5 mins]
+% The standards should have had more influence."
+
+% Hacking at bst files. Structures in the bst files that I understand.[5 mins]
+% Postfix stack business that I don't.
+% Bit of critique: "Did Patashnik really have to use this Postfix
+% stack business? I don't know."
+
+% Future work for somebody: [5 mins]
+% - start with the concepts in the standards.
+% - define fields.
+% - define bst files that process such bib files.
+% - write it all up.
+\medskip
+\subsection{5.4: Implementation}
+The \BibTeX\ style-file language provides many facilities for
+manipulation of the information that appears in bibliographies.
+Thus, having defined new entry-types and fields, one can
+declare the fields to \BibTeX and also
+define \BibTeX\ {\tt FUNCTION}s to construct the
+ bibliography entries from the fields
+
+I anticipate that if the business of defining entry-types and fields that
+correspond more closely to those defined by the principal standards was
+followed through, there would be less need for the sorts of tricks
+mentioned in Figure {1}, and the output would
+be more likely to be `right first time'.
+
+
+
+
+\section{6: Wish lists}
+\subsection{6.1: \BibTeXi\ itself}
+The current version of \BibTeX\ makes it difficult to produce the style shown in BSI
+(1989) for titles that involve colons. For example, BSI (1989) shows the title:
+
+\centerline{\it Shetland sanctuary: birds on the Isle of Noss}
+
+\noindent Unfortunately, the effect of \BibTeX's |change.case t$| on the likely
+ {\tt bib} file entry would be to give `{\it Birds\/}'.
+
+It would be useful if some future version of \BibTeX\
+allowed a variation on
+\begintt
+change.case$ t
+\endtt
+that refrained from `upper-casing' after a colon.
+\medskip
+\subsection{6.2: \BibTeXi\ style-files}
+It would be nice if someone had time to develop style-files that
+worked in terms of the same concepts as the principal standards, and
+delivered bibliographies formatted in accordance with these standards!
+\medskip
+\subsection{6.3: The combination of \LaTeXsl\ and \BibTeXi}
+\subsubsection{A document having more than one list}
+An author may wish to use `bibliography' to mean `works in the field, with
+some notes about them', and `references' to mean `works I have cited'. Thus,
+a `bibliography' may not be the same as `a long list of references', and
+\LaTeX's assumption that {\tt article}s have `references' while
+{\tt report}s and {\tt book}s have `bibliographies' may be an
+over-simplification.
+
+Some works have more than one list. For example a book might have a
+division called `references', listing works
+ giving further information about the subjects covered in the book,
+ and a division called `further reading', listing works that
+ cover related subjects.
+Similarly, the draft new British Standard for theses (BSI, 1988) suggests a
+`list
+ of references' (for `every work cited') {\em and\/} a `bibliography'
+ (for `all sources consulted but not necessarily relevant to the
+ thesis').
+
+There is no harm in {\tt thebibliography} having a default title,
+but an official mechanism for replacing the default by a more accurate
+description would be very useful.
+Aside: Are the people who are developing non-English
+\LaTeX\ repeating the over-simplification? Instead of providing a mechanism for getting
+equivalents of `references' and `bibliography' in many languages,
+might it be better to just provide one default title in each language
+plus a mechanism for changing the title?
+
+More ambitiously, could some future versions of
+\LaTeX/\BibTeX\ give more general support to documents
+with more than one list? For example,
+could some |\cite|\/s generate a list of references in a brief
+|\bibliographystyle| to be printed under
+a heading of `references', while other |\cite|\/s generate another
+list in a different |\bibliographystyle| to be printed under a heading
+of `further reading'?
+I think that people producing conference proceedings can currently
+get references at the end of each chapter by applying \BibTeX\ separately
+to each chapter: could some development simplify their task?
+\medskip
+\subsubsection{A list with subdivisions}
+Under some circumstances, it may be desirable to divide a list into
+sections. For example, Figure {2} shows the structure of the
+bibliography for a history thesis. Chicago (Chicago Manual of Style,
+1982; chapter 15) shows some further examples of subdivided bibliographies.
+
+\caption{Figure 2: Structure of a history thesis bibliography}
+{\parindent0pt
+\baselineskip10pt
+\font\ttt=cmtt8
+\let\tt\ttt
+\begintt
+\section{Manuscript sources}
+ \subsection{Nottinghamshire County Record Office}
+ \subsection{Nottingham University Library,
+ Manuscripts Department}
+ \subsection{Public Record Office}
+ \subsection{British Library}
+ \subsection{Borthwick Institute}
+ \subsection{Friend's Reference Library}
+ \subsection{Dr. William's Library}
+\section{Printed sources}
+ \subsection{National government series}
+ \subsection{Historical Manuscripts Commission}
+ \subsection{Thomason Tracts (British Library)}
+ \subsection{Other printed sources}
+\section{Secondary works}
+\section{Periodicals}
+\section{Theses}
+\endtt
+}
+
+Could some future versions of \LaTeX/\BibTeX\ support such subdivisions?
+For example,
+perhaps |\section| and |\subsection| could be allowed within
+{\tt thebibliography}, the author could put
+\begintt
+@UNPUBLISHED{...
+ subbib = "Manuscript Sources",
+ ...
+ }
+\endtt
+in a {\tt .bib} file, and \LaTeX/\BibTeX\ between them could arrange that
+the item in question would appear under a sub-heading of `Manuscript Sources'.
+
+\section{7: References}
+\let\newblock\null
+\let\em\rm
+{\frenchspacing\parindent0pt\hangindent20pt\hangafter1
+BSI,
+BS 1629, British Standards Institution, 1989.
+{\it For printed matter, the 1989 edition sometimes gives less detail
+than the 1976 edition. The present article uses information from both editions.}
+
+\hangindent20pt\hangafter1 BSI,
+Citation of unpublished documents,
+BS 6371, British Standards
+Institution, 1983.
+
+\hangindent20pt\hangafter1 BSI,
+Citing publications by bibliographic references,
+\newblock BS 5605, British Standards Institution, 1978.
+
+\hangindent20pt\hangafter1 BSI,
+Recommendations for the presentation of theses, dissertations and similar
+ documents: Draft for public comment,
+\newblock BS 4821, British Standards Institution, 1988.
+\newblock {\it The revised standard is likely to be published in 1990.}
+
+\hangindent20pt\hangafter1 Judith Butcher,
+\newblock {\em Copy-editing},
+\newblock Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition, 1981.
+
+
+\hangindent20pt\hangafter1
+{\em The {C}hicago Manual of Style},
+ University of Chicago Press, 13th
+edition, 1982.
+
+
+\hangindent20pt\hangafter1 Horace Hart,
+\newblock {\em Hart's rules for compositors and readers at the {U}niversity
+ {P}ress, {O}xford},
+\newblock Oxford University Press, 39th edition, 1983.
+\newblock {\it Revised by Hart's successors.}
+
+\hangindent20pt\hangafter1 Leslie Lamport,
+\newblock {\em \LaTeX: A Document Preparation System},
+\newblock Addison-Wesley, 1986.
+
+\hangindent20pt\hangafter1 Mary-Claire van Leunen,
+\newblock {\em A Handbook for Scholars},
+\newblock Knopf, 1978.
+
+\hangindent20pt\hangafter1 Ruari McLean,
+\newblock {\em The {T}hames and {H}udson Manual of Typography},
+\newblock Thames and Hudson, 1980.
+
+\hangindent20pt\hangafter1 Oren Patashnik,
+\newblock {\em \BibTeX ing}, January 1988a.
+
+
+\hangindent20pt\hangafter1 Oren Patashnik,
+\newblock {\em Designing \BibTeX\ styles}, January 1988b.
+
+\hangindent20pt\hangafter1 Kate~L. Turabian,
+\newblock {\em A Manual for Writers},
+\newblock University of Chicago Press, 5th edition, 1987.
+
+
+\hangindent20pt\hangafter1 Hugh Williamson,
+\newblock {\em Methods of Book Design},
+\newblock Yale University Press, 3rd edition, 1983.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+}
+\rightline{\sl David Rhead}
+