biblatex
biblatex copied to clipboard
plk
Patent date
Thank you for the pull request. Unfortunately, I'm a bit short of time at the moment and I'm not sure if I can have a look at the big picture in the next week or so. Even if I find the time to comment on a few things there is still the decision of whether or not to accept the pull request.
In the past, the stance has been rather conservative with respect to "simple" changes to the datamodel like this. It has always been accepted that the standard styles can not cater for everyone's need and that sometimes custom definitions are needed: That's why biblatex is easily customisable in the first place. See for example previous discussions in https://github.com/plk/biblatex/issues/122, https://github.com/plk/biblatex/issues/156, https://github.com/plk/biblatex/issues/256, https://github.com/plk/biblatex/pull/766
Thank you for the pull request. Unfortunately, I'm a bit short of time at the moment and I'm not sure if I can have a look at the big picture in the next week or so. Even if I find the time to comment on a few things there is still the decision of whether or not to accept the pull request.
In the past, the stance has been rather conservative with respect to "simple" changes to the datamodel like this. It has always been accepted that the standard styles can not cater for everyone's need and that sometimes custom definitions are needed: That's why
biblatexis easily customisable in the first place. See for example previous discussions in #122, #156, #256, #766
I understand but for patents they are three date printed on a patent : publication date, filed date and granted date. The three date are important from a legal point of view, and it will improve the quality of bibliographic database
Thank you for the improvements.
I'm afraid to say that at the moment I'm not convinced this is an addition that is either (1) encountered time and again or (2) can't be solved without changes to internals (https://github.com/plk/biblatex/issues/256#issuecomment-49529087). I also couldn't find any style guide that requires that all those date be listed (I only checked a few I could get my hands on).
Do you have any evidence that this is an important feature that people need for their bibliography (as opposed to being a nice to have), ideally references to established style guides that want addition of these dates?
According to chicago manual of style: 15.50 Patents or other documents cited by more than one date Cite patents and other documents that include more than one date as follows (note that the year of issue is repeated to avoid ambiguity).
Christensen, Godtfred Kirk. Toy building set. U.S. Patent 3,597,875 filed November 18, 1968, and issued August 10, 1971.
@moewew chicago manual of style was established in USA during the period of submarine patent, so issued and granted date were the same. It is not the case now, and was not the case in Europe, so we have three dates + expiration
IEEE publication differentiate between filled and granted date see ftp://tug.ctan.org/pub/tex-archive/macros/latex/contrib/IEEEtran/bibtex/IEEEtran_bst_HOWTO.pdf
we now have date origdate eventdate enddate， can we use them as filed granted issued expired date?
@hushidong We could do that, but it wouldn't be particularly semantically sound. It's not that it is hard to implement the new dates, it's more about whether or not it makes sense to change the standard styles to include these dates. As far as I can see it has always been the general stance of the biblatex maintainers that the standard styles can't cover every eventuality and that it makes sense to be conservative when it comes to changes.
@bastien-roucaries Thanks for the references. I haven't had the chance to check what exactly the CMoS has to say about patents first-hand, but most secondary sources say that several patent dates are required.
The reference to http://mirrors.ctan.org/macros/latex/contrib/IEEEtran/bibtex/IEEEtran_bst_HOWTO.pdf is interesting, because the document explains
In order to provide full support for both patents and patentapplications, two sets of date fields are provided. One set pertains to the date the patent was granted (
day,monthandyear) the other pertains to the date the patent application filed (dayfiled,monthfiledandyearfiled). There is a slight complication because the IEEE displays only one date for references of patents or patent applications.IEEEtran.bstlooks for the presence of theyearandyearfiledfiles. If theyearfieldis present, the set pertaining to the date granted is used. Otherwise,IEEEtran.bstuses the set pertaining to the date filed.
In particular I would expect that every patent (as opposed to a patent application) would definitely have a date granted, which means that the date filed is rarely used.
See also https://www.ieee.org/content/dam/ieee-org/ieee/web/org/conferences/style_references_manual.pdf, p. 9 or https://journals.ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/your-role-in-article-production/ieee-editorial-style-manual/ and in particular http://journals.ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/IEEE-Reference-Guide.pdf, p. 11
NOTE: Use “issued date” if several dates are given.
I'm not sure if the CMoS alone is enough to convince me the standard styles need all these dates.
@moewew Patent are not always granted since the 2010's and the WIPO rules. Now patent are publied after two years and are not always granted. IEEE style manual use the old US rule, that publied patent are always granted. It is now not the case.
Issued date is important for computing the normal expiration date that is approximatly 20 years after filling date.
Bluebook recommand other stuff but need issued for application https://legalbeagle.com/5650426-cite-patent-application.html
They are a good summary of US style for patent here: https://legalbeagle.com/5650426-cite-patent-application.html
Acm need filling date (and it is a huge publisher for computer science) https://www.acm.org/publications/authors/reference-formatting
pubmed ask to add application number and filling date as optionnal https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK7260/
Thanks
I'm still not entirely sure what to do with this. I'm hoping to finish off biblatex 3.13 soon, so I think I will leave this open to discuss and pick up after the 3.13 release for biblatex 3.14.
Oh right, this is still open. Sorry about that.
Since we already have some data model changes lined up for the next version we might as well look at this again. I'll take a closer look again, but I can't promise it will be this weekend, I'm afraid. If there is anything that needs to be changed, I'll let you know.
Hmmm, I still have my reservations about this. But they are mostly aesthetic: It just seems to be a lot of additional weight for a very, very narrow use case. (In particular the required change for the .bst file and the data model.)
@plk What do you think?
I think I would opt for a style to implement this as it is quite specialised and I can't see this being used much, if at all, in standard styles. A style could easily add datamodel components to make this possible.
That's more or less what I feel as well, but there is an argument to be made that support in the standard styles would help with adoption of these kind of dates in other styles (possibly styles that should or at least could have them according to their specifications) and it appears that at least some common style guides advocate including these kind of dates. Given that we did add a @dataset type recently, I'm trying to formulate a policy as to what we are inclined to include or not in the standard styles here.
Le sam. 18 juil. 2020 à 14:28, moewew [email protected] a écrit :
Hmmm, I still have my reservations about this. But they are mostly aesthetic: It just seems to be a lot of additional weight for a very, very narrow use case. (In particular the required change for the .bst file and the data model.)
@plk https://github.com/plk What do you think?
We have already a patent entry. The problem is the patent style is not usuable for patent status.
I can improve if needed
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/plk/biblatex/pull/907#issuecomment-660475934, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABE5UHDAYHTKTIIS34ZELT3R4GINLANCNFSM4ID2EKOA .
The problem is the patent style is not usuable for patent status.
This depends on the style, I'd say. I'm pretty sure APA style would be OK with only one date. That's why PLK says this can be left up to the style.
In the standard styles we try to strike a balance between having a usable data model for basic use cases and having a clean and understandable data model without too much clutter. The question is whether the four new date fields are so important for referencing patents in a basic/generoc style that it outweighs the burden of adding all the stuff (doing the actual work to add the dates is not the main problem, that is doable and I see you are willing to help, the problem is maintaining the code in the long run and setting a precedent: if we just add anything anyone ever asks about, we'd end up with an unmaintainable mess).
@NikolayTach No, this PR hasn't been merged and is therefore not in the release version of biblatex (and not on CTAN).
We're still debating whether an extension of the data model on this scale is sensible in the grand scheme of things (see comments above). It has always been a given that the standard data model cannot cover every single use case and that users can add new fields as needed.