bibliography double and display of "Original date: ..."

[arlogriffiths]

@michaelnmmeyer — do you understand how it is that we get two different versions of Vogel1947-1948_01 in the cumulative bibliography? (I suspect that one is a vestige of a previously existing double of the other zoter entry, that I have since merged into the latter.)

In cases, like this one, where we have an "Original date: ..." in Extra, I think most readers will find it clearer what we mean if the display could be as in one of the following options:

Vogel, Jean Philippe. 1947–1948 (published 1956). “Prakrit inscriptions of Ghaṇṭaśālā.” EI 27, pp. 1–4.
Vogel, Jean Philippe. 1947–1948. “Prakrit inscriptions of Ghaṇṭaśālā.” EI 27 (published 1956), pp. 1–4.

I prefer the latter, if it equally easy to implement.

[michaelnmmeyer]

The two entries you mention have different short titles. The first one has "Vogel1947-1948_01" (with a normal dash), the second one has "Vogel1947–1948_01" (with an en dash).

For "Original date", was it not initially supposed to be used to indicate the date of the first edition? I think people have been using it like that.

[arlogriffiths]

Thanks a lot Michaël. I have merged the two keeping the ZST with normal dash ('hyphen').

Can you set up a second list at https://dharmalekha.info/bibliography-errors helping us to track down and periodically correct ZSTs that contain illegal (non-ASCII) characters? If there are other computationally detectable sources of error that can be listed, that will no doubt be useful too.

As for the meaning of "Original date:", see the second half of ZG §4.7 (Date). The usage in Vogel1947-1948_01 is compliant. It will be nice to make the proposed adjustment of the display. If we can detect case where "Original date:" has been used the date of the first edition, I think it may be necessary to change the representation in Zotero. (Maybe you can extract all cases so I can check case-buy-case?) For representing this type of information, it would be desirable if we could put to use the Zotero functionality "Related" as described at the end of ZG §3.2.2.5 (gdoc version). The simplest would be no doubt to furnish a [Related] after the model of [URL], the hyperlink in this case pointing to ther other bibliography item.

[michaelnmmeyer]

OK for flagging errors.

For "Original date", we have a problem. This is a standard extra field in zotero, and it does mean "date of first publication" and is interpreted like that by e.g. the Chicago stylesheet. (See here, in the table; note the other fields Original publisher, etc.) BibLaTeX also uses fields named "origdate", "origtitle", etc., to refer to the first publication of a peculiar work.

I would thus suggest that 1) we use "Original date", "Original title", etc. for referring to the first publication of a work; 2) we use a different terminology for the other use case; maybe "Actual date" (of publication)?

[arlogriffiths]

Please let me know when a list flagging illegal characters in ZSTs has been implemented.

I am not sure there really is a problem, or needs to be a problem. The Zotero definition of "Original date" is "The original date an item was published." By this vague definition, both (a) cases of reprints of older items and (b) cases of a journal being actually published later than the year(s) of coverage, could be understood to be covered. And the easiest way forward may hence be to change nothing, or to change only slightly the display we currently have (e.g. "Original data" behind "Date" instead of before it).

Anyhow, in order for our options to become transparent,

1. would you be able to propose a different Zotero representation of cases (b)?
2. can you extract a list of all entries bearing "Original date"?

[michaelnmmeyer]

I will come back to this.