Talk:PubMan Func Spec Export/APA

APA revision
All issues on this page are to be included in the APA revision. As soon as they are implemented, they will be moved to the main page. --despoina 13:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * UPDATE --Issues that are already implemented have been moved to the main page and deleted from this page. --despoina 13:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Revision on Creators
--despoina 13:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * if there are 3-20 authors: commas separate author names, while the last author name is preceded again by ampersand. E.g.: Kernis, M. H., Cornell, D. P., Sun, C. R., Berry, A., & Harlow, T.
 * give the last name and initials for all authors of a particular work unless the work has more than 20 authors. If the work has more than 20 authors, list the first 20 authors and then use et al. E.g.: Harris, M., Karper, E., Stacks, G., Hoffman, D., DeNiro, R., Cruz, P., Author, A., Author, B., [......], Author20, A., et al.
 * --Makarenko 15:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC): Done.
 * --despoina 11:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC): Moved to main page.

--despoina 08:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC) IMPORTANT UPDATE (after phone call with Mrs. Kastens): There is still the question open, whether the same rule should apply to Editors as well. There are some pro and contra arguments: Pro --> the rule would be more consistent if it included editors as well. Contra --> Since Editors often appear in the middle of the citation, putting more than six of them into the middle of a citation would make it appear as "fragmented" (citation data - very long string of names - more citation data). Extra note --> the number of editors only rarely rises above 6, we should perhaps also take this detail into account. The question doesnt have to be answered now, but it needs to be discussed in the next round of editing APA.
 * --despoina 11:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC): How was this issue handled? Does the rule apply to editors as well?

Proposals
Please note: These proposals are not to be implemented for 6.1. They are to be discussed with the users and, according to the outcome of this discussion, then planned for one of the next releases. --despoina 08:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Books with Source.Genre=Series
Old rule: Author, A. A. (Year of publication). Title: Alternative Title (Edition). Place of Publication: Name of Publisher.

O'Connor, L. (2007). Motion, transfer, and transformation: The grammar of change in Lowland Chontal. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

New proposal: Author, A. A. (Year of publication).  Title: Alternative Title (Edition). Place of Publication: Name of Publisher. (Title of Source, SourceVolume).

Hannay, M. & Bolkestein, M.A. (Eds.). (1998). Functional grammar and verbal interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. (Studies in language companion series, Vol. 44).


 * --despoina 15:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC): Please note that this is just a proposal. Since the APA manual does not contain a relevant example, we have to wait for user feedback, before this rule is implemented.


 * feedback from our scientists in Nijmegen: 'we don't care'. (explanation: The mentioning of the series was used to be an additional quality stamp in linguistics, but since publication ways are changing, its no longer of importance). People here ususally don't cite the series title. With respect to your proposal. It's ok. If people don't want the series title in their reference they won 't list it in PubMan.--Karin 15:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * --despoina 11:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC): Please clear with Ulla whether this rule should be implemented or not

Book Chapter (where Source=Book and Source=Series)
When a Book Chapter has two sources (where one is a book and the other a series), then the citation should look like that:

New (specific) Rule:

Author, A. A., & Author, B. (Year of publication). Title. In A. EditorofSeries, & B. EditorofSeries (Eds.), ''Title of Series: Volume of Series. Title of Book'' (pp. xxx-xxx). Place of Publication: Name of Publisher.

Friederici, A. D., & Oberecker, R. (2008). The development of syntactic brain correlates. In A. D. Friederici, & G. Thierry (Eds.), Trends in Language Acquisition Research (TiLAR): Vol. 5. Early language development: Bridging brain and behaviour (pp. 215-231). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
 * --despoina 10:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC): In any other combination of sources, just take general citation for book chapter.
 * I'd like to veto this at least until end of next week or next apa revision. I've looked in our old annual reports and found a citation which fits the criteria http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:59541, its also on edoc. The way it is now exported on Pubman is fine, we could add the series at the end.

PubMan now: Levinson, S. C., & Wilkins, D. P. (2006). The background to the study of the language of space. In S. C. Levinson, & D. P. Wilkins (Eds.), Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity (pp. 1-23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. proposal: Levinson, S. C., & Wilkins, D. P. (2006). The background to the study of the language of space. In S. C. Levinson, & D. P. Wilkins (Eds.), Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity (pp. 1-23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Language, culture and cognition ; vol. 6). Background. This way it gets better cited, better indexed, if one mentions the series people can't find it.--Karin 16:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * --despoina 16:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC): Please do not implement, until issue has been discussed and decided upon.


 * I'd like to confirm my wish of citing chapters in volumes of series compliantly to APA because I think it's really a matter of standard - I see no use in creating an APA export when it gets messy again. I appreciate the APA divergent rule of how many authors are cited very much because this is really important with regard to content (otherwise a lot of publications in our reports would not be traceable to its contributors). In my perspective, it is different in this case, because the APA way of citing volumes in series is consistent and logical in its way - it's maybe just a bit unfamiliar to us. Adding series in brackets is no APA at all and might confuse people, who read it but also people at the institutes who create publication lists and reports and who are told to take the APA manual for reference - that's the point of a standard. Especially with regard to research reports people in my institute care a lot for the correctness of it all. Marion Schmidt


 * --schmidt 17:41, 14 April 2010

Since we only have ONE APA citation style which a) can 't display everything APA manual foresees because we do not have the metadata entry possibilities (like eg Advance online publications are different from online publications - and we can't even specify that s.th. is an online publication at all), b) differs already in some points (number of authors, dates with posters or talks) we already need to spool the references through Endnote or another tool, which we CAN adjust to specific needs, if 100% APA citation is necessary, like e.g. for a Fachbeirat. The APA we get from PubMan is 85% ok, but serves the need for webpages and other listings. --Karin 09:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In our view it is imperative the we do NOT change to 'correct' APA rule in this particular matter. I've asked scientists and they have never seen it that way PLUS it is very confusing. As librarians we often get interlibrary loan requests where the title of the series is confused with the title of the book because of this way of citing. Then references are hard to fine.

Date of Event format
Date of Event is currently exported in the default PubMan format (YYYY-MM-DD). There has been an improvement proposal, that dates of events are exported as follows:

Month Day, Year example: April 4, 2010

if StartDateOfEvent ≠ EndDateOfEvent, then the format should be as follows:

Month, Day (of Start Date of Event) - Day (of End Date of Event), Year example: April 4-6, 2010
 * --despoina 13:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC) after e-mail communication with Mrs. Kastens (PUBMAN-SUPPORT:2861)
 * --despoina 14:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC) The following cases need further specification before the new format can be implemented:
 * StartDateOfEvent ≠ EndDateOfEvent, and StartDateOfEvent.Month ≠ and EndDateOfEvent.Month, e.g. April 30 - March 2, 2010. What should the citation look like, if the event takes place in two different months?


 * StartDateOfEvent ≠ EndDateOfEvent, and StartDateOfEvent.Year ≠ and EndDateOfEvent.Year, e.g. December 30, 2010 - January 2, 2011. What should the citation look like, if the event takes place in two different years? (this is, of course, a very rare, almost impossible scenario, that an event stretches from before till after new year, but it would be best to have the possibility covered)

The specified examples for event taking places in different months and/or different years are fine. --Karin 14:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Mapping proposal for new genres
--despoina 14:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)