path: root/info/digests/texline/no10/talk.tex

\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}