biblatex-apa’s “writer" matches MODS’s "Author of screenplay, etc." (http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html)
And for "founder", "Bibliographic antecedent" does seem to be appropriate.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Your suggestions have been added to version 4.16. For ones you're less clear on, I'm going to hold off for now.
I confess to being a little dismayed at the editor/editora/editorb, editortype/editoratype/editorbtype... I really thought that bibtex and biblatex were much more reasonable formats.
What biblatex-apa does is much more sensible. The biblatex/biblatex-chicago is about as bad as the reuse of tags in the Endnote refer format. With tags of variable lengths, there's no reason not to just directly specify redactor/compiler/etc. rather than have ambiguous tag/value pairs that require other tag/value pairs to be correctly deciphered.
In any event, 4.16 should handle these correctly. Let me know if they don't.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I agree, this is awkward. I would guess there are historical reasons behind this, most probably a need to have a small number of hard-coded fields only that the bibtex program, initally the only backend, now phased out in favour of biber, could work with. Still, as far as I have seen, biblatex2xml does a very good job here. Thank you!
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
biblatex has a few more fields than bibtex specifying roles.
author,editor,translator, andcommentatorare presently converted by biblatex2xml.A few could be added to biblatex2xml (-> indicates MODS roles I’d suggest, based on http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html):
(Note that http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html presently does not distinguish between introduction and foreword.)
In addition, biblatex has several editor fields (i. e.,
editor,editora,editorb,editorc).For each, there is a corresponding editortype field (i. e.,
editortype,editoratype,editorbtype,editorctype)The following roles are supported by default in biblatex. The role ‘editor’ is the default. In this case, the editortype field is omissible.
Some of these translate to MODS roles easily:
Others are less clear (but maybe also less frequently required):
What seems more important is support for a few roles not used by biblatex itself but by derivatives such as biblatex-chicago and biblatex-apa.
biblatex-chicago has the editortypes (
editortype,editoratype,editorbtype,editorctype; with MODS roles I’d suggest)biblatex-apa has the additional fields [!] (again with MODS roles I’d suggest)
It would be nice if at least the more straightforward conversions could be implemented in bibutils. Thank you.
Last edit: Nick Bart 2012-12-19
biblatex-apa’s “writer" matches MODS’s "Author of screenplay, etc." (http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html)
And for "founder", "Bibliographic antecedent" does seem to be appropriate.
Your suggestions have been added to version 4.16. For ones you're less clear on, I'm going to hold off for now.
I confess to being a little dismayed at the editor/editora/editorb, editortype/editoratype/editorbtype... I really thought that bibtex and biblatex were much more reasonable formats.
What biblatex-apa does is much more sensible. The biblatex/biblatex-chicago is about as bad as the reuse of tags in the Endnote refer format. With tags of variable lengths, there's no reason not to just directly specify redactor/compiler/etc. rather than have ambiguous tag/value pairs that require other tag/value pairs to be correctly deciphered.
In any event, 4.16 should handle these correctly. Let me know if they don't.
I agree, this is awkward. I would guess there are historical reasons behind this, most probably a need to have a small number of hard-coded fields only that the bibtex program, initally the only backend, now phased out in favour of biber, could work with. Still, as far as I have seen, biblatex2xml does a very good job here. Thank you!