{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/plk/biblatex/issues/427","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/plk/biblatex","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/plk/biblatex/issues/427/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/plk/biblatex/issues/427/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/plk/biblatex/issues/427/events","html_url":"https://github.com/plk/biblatex/issues/427","id":156166707,"number":427,"title":"Circa dates, circa date ranges, and question marked dates. Plus Eras.","user":{"login":"JohnLukeBentley","id":18357541,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/18357541?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/JohnLukeBentley","html_url":"https://github.com/JohnLukeBentley","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JohnLukeBentley/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JohnLukeBentley/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JohnLukeBentley/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JohnLukeBentley/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JohnLukeBentley/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JohnLukeBentley/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JohnLukeBentley/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JohnLukeBentley/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JohnLukeBentley/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":70,"created_at":"2016-05-22T18:55:52Z","updated_at":"2016-06-13T12:00:02Z","closed_at":null,"body":"I request support for:\r\n\r\n* Circa dates, e.g. `origdate={c 0125}`; \r\n* Circa date ranges, e.g. `origdate={c 1487/1490}`; and\r\n* Question marked dates, e.g. `origdate={1750 ?}`.\r\n\r\nIt would be desirable for these kinds of values to be permissible in all date fields. I use `origdate` as the more likely example. There might be reasons for choosing different symbols for these kind of dates, to make parsing easier. There might be reasons for disallowing spaces.\r\n\r\nedit: \r\nThis issue thread also combines issue [Before the common era (BCE/BC) and common era (CE/AD) date support. #422](https://github.com/plk/biblatex/issues/422)\r\n/edit\r\n\r\n## Kinds\r\n\r\nWhen writing a scholarly piece there are several kinds of date ambiguities and uncertainties, these are listed below.\r\n\r\n(Part of the power of Biblatex is in providing support for many and any type of style guide. But in the cases below I sometimes borrow from the ...\r\n\r\nUniversity of Chicago. 2010. The Chicago Manual of Style. 16th ed. Chicago:\r\nUniversity of Chicago. http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/contents.html. \r\n\r\n... because it sheds some light on these issues. I could have chosen another style guide.)\r\n\r\n1. Circa dates. Where the scholarship is only able to fix a date approximately. Generally this is beyond the precision of a year, as in \"c. 125 CE\" (rather than at the precision of a day: we rarely see, in publishing, something like \"c. 0125-02-20\").\r\n\r\n    > ca. or c. \r\n    >\r\n    > circa, about, approximately (ca. preferred for greater clarity) \r\n\r\n    (University of Chicago 2010, under \"10.43 Scholarly abbreviations\", http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/ch10/ch10_sec043.html)\r\n\r\n        // These are my examples (derived but not quoted from (University of Chicago 2010))\r\n        (Epictetus ca. 125 CE)\r\n        (Epictetus c. 125 CE)\r\n\r\n1. Circa date ranges. \r\n\r\n        Citation: (da Vinci c. 1487–1490)\r\n        \r\n        Reference Entry: \r\n        Da Vinci, Leonardo. c. 1487–1490. Codex Trivulzianus.\r\n\r\n1. No dates. \r\n\r\n    > \"When the publication date of a printed work cannot be ascertained, the abbreviation n.d.\"\r\n\r\n    >     Boston, n.d.\r\n        \r\n    (University of Chicago 2010, under \"14.152 'No date'\", http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/ch14/ch14_sec152.html)        \r\n\r\n1. Question marked dates. \r\n\r\n    >  A guessed-at date may either be substituted (in brackets) or added.\r\n    >     Edinburgh, [1750?] or Edinburgh, n.d., ca. 1750 \r\n\r\n    (University of Chicago 2010, under \"14.152 'No date'\", http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/ch14/ch14_sec152.html) \r\n\r\n1. Ambiguities over which known date is relevant. For example we might have the following reference entry:\r\n\r\n    > Hume, David. 1751. “An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals.”\r\nIn Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals, 3rd ed., edited by L. A. Selby-Bigge and P. H. Nidditch. New York: Oxford University Press, 1975-06-12. isbn: 978-0-19-824536-0.\r\n\r\n    ... but there is ambiguity around whether  1751 is the relevant original date, given ...\r\n\r\n    > Selby-Bigge and Nidditch’s 1975 edition is based off a collection of Hume’s\r\nessays posthumously published in 1777. \r\n\r\n    We could have chosen 1777 as the original date. But, in the case, we have reasons for choosing one date (1751) over another (1777). So in the reference entry we can add an annotation that explains all this. The annotation thereby handles the ambiguity ...\r\n    \r\n    > Selby-Bigge and Nidditch’s 1975 edition is based off a collection of Hume’s\r\nessays posthumously published in 1777. However, Hume’s “An Enquiry Concerning the\r\n    Principles of Morals” was first published in 1751, and that's the date we use here.\r\n\r\n## Feature requests for Biblatex\r\n\r\nBilatex already handles:\r\n\r\n* 3\\. No dates; and\r\n* 5\\. Ambiguities over which known date is relevant.\r\n\r\nBiblatex also provides for date ranges. \r\n\r\nSo I request the additional functionality for:\r\n\r\n* 1\\. Circa dates, perhaps input as in something like `origdate={c 0125}`; \r\n* 2\\. Circa date ranges, perhaps input as in something like  `origdate={c 1487/1490}`; and\r\n* 4\\. Question marked dates, perhaps input as in something like  `origdate={1750 ?}`.\r\n    \r\n## Other considerations.\r\n\r\nOften enough there might be no semantic difference between a circa date and a question marked date. Both can be used to express a uncertainty about a date. It's rare to come across a questioned marked date, relative to a circa date. So it might be tempting to ignore question marked dates with the rule: \"If you are uncertain about a date just designate it as a circa date\".\r\n\r\nHowever, there probably are going to be contexts, albeit rare, in which an author does want to maintain a semantic difference. E.g. For dates they are personally uncertain about, the author might tag with a question mark. For a date that the author knows a community of scholars has established as having a lack of precision, the author might tag with a circa.\r\n\r\nOn the issue of whether to support output formats \"ca.\" or \"c.\" as the abbreviation for circa, I'm undecided. Personally I can generally mostly recall seeing `c. 1815` and probably prefer this look, but the Chicago Manual of Style promotes 'ca.'. Perhaps both possibilities need to be supported for style authors who, in turn, provide options for users (with relevant defaults for a chosen style).\r\n"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/plk/biblatex/issues/comments/225561252","html_url":"https://github.com/plk/biblatex/issues/427#issuecomment-225561252","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/plk/biblatex/issues/427","id":225561252,"user":{"login":"JohnLukeBentley","id":18357541,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/18357541?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/JohnLukeBentley","html_url":"https://github.com/JohnLukeBentley","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JohnLukeBentley/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JohnLukeBentley/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JohnLukeBentley/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JohnLukeBentley/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JohnLukeBentley/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JohnLukeBentley/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JohnLukeBentley/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JohnLukeBentley/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JohnLukeBentley/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2016-06-13T12:00:02Z","updated_at":"2016-06-13T12:00:02Z","body":"Philip, for outputting 5.2.2 you mean something like ...\r\n\r\n```\r\nauthor = {Conradus Saxo}\r\norigdate = {12uu}\r\ntitle={Speculum Beatæ Mariæ Virginis}\r\n...\r\n=>\r\n\r\n (Saxo 1200/1299)\r\n\r\n% ... and so ...\r\n\r\n199u => 1990/1999\r\n19uu => 1900/1999\r\n1999-uu => 1999-01/1999-12\r\n1999-01-uu => 1999-01-01/1999-01-31\r\n1999-uu-uu =>  1999-01-01/1999-12-31\r\n```\r\n?\r\n\r\nThat looks like a consistent output scheme. If there was to be other output schemes at least the one you are suggesting looks like one that might be highly desirable. So at least yours seems worth implementing.\r\n\r\nOn outputting negative dates. I think we'd want to allow ...\r\n\r\n```\r\n-0279 (e.g. for `alldates=edtf`; and `alldates=iso8601`)\r\n\r\n0280 BCE (for `alldates=colloquial`, or whatever the value would be). \r\n          That is, leading zero to make for 4 digits.\r\n\r\n280 BCE (with an option for those who hate leading zeros).\r\n```\r\nDefault: iso8601.\r\n\r\nI think of the iso8601 *output* format as supporting space delimiters, while the EDTF output format would not. Something that only comes into play with datetimes, but might be selected for bibliographies containing both date times and BCE (negative) dates. For example someone writing a paper on Plato might reference a blog post as well as Plato's Republic. \r\n\r\nThey therefore my want to pass the option `alldates=iso8601` to biblatex in order to output `2016-02-07 03:30:20 +10:00`, as in ...\r\n\r\n<pre><code>\r\nPlato (-0279). Republic. Trans. by C. D. C. Reeve. 3rd edition. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing   \r\n    Company, Inc. 392 pp. isbn: 0-87220-737-4.\r\nPriest, John (2016). <strong>2016-02-07 03:30:20 +10:00</strong>. Philosopher of the month: Plato. url: http : / /\r\n</code></pre>\r\n\r\nIf they chose `alldates=edtf`, by contrast, then that might want ...\r\n<pre><code>\r\nPlato (-0279). Republic. Trans. by C. D. C. Reeve. 3rd edition. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing   \r\n    Company, Inc. 392 pp. isbn: 0-87220-737-4.\r\nPriest, John (2016). <strong>22016-02-07T03:30:20+10:00</strong>. Philosopher of the month: Plato. url: http : / /\r\n    blog.oup.com/2016/02/philosopher- of- the- month- plato/ (visited on 2016-06-13).\r\n</code></pre>\r\n\r\nI mean I haven't though much about how and where a datetime ought fit into the bibliographic entries' output, I'm not sure what the style guides say, if anything. But if we are supporting datetimes then iso8601 and edft output choices can express something different: whether space delimiters are used. Alternatively, or in addition, you may what a space delimiter option for output datetime strings. \r\n\r\nIn terms of negative years, when outputting my own documents I'd be going for `0280 BCE`, but I realize I might be freakish here. That's also why I recommend the ISO8601 default.\r\n\r\nAll that's not very thought through. It's offered as something for you to push against."}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"JohnLukeBentley"}}