diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'info/digests/texline/no10/talk.tex')
-rw-r--r-- | info/digests/texline/no10/talk.tex | 854 |
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} + |