Sonny Software

In legal citations (and I guess in some others) in footnotes one thing that is time consuming and a pain to do manually is cross-referencing of "secondary" citations: e.g. "see Schabas, supra note xy, p. 34". (where "note" is a reference to the footnote where the full citation first appeared).

I appreciate that cross-referencing option is a big task to implement in a word processor (Mellel has announced the option for its 2.5 release), and I understand it requires additional "communication" between the word processor and the biblio. software, but I nevertheless dare to ask: will Bookends support something like that in the future?

Or is this a question which should be resolved solely b y a word processor and not by bibli. software? I search the forum to see if somebody raised the question before and didn't found it; so I'm a bit perplexed - am I missing something?

I'm not sure exactly what you want to be able to do, since I don't use a reference style that requires putting citations in footnotes, but I wonder if you know that in Word you can insert cross-references to footnotes. You can even put a cross-reference to one footnote in another footnote. I'm sure that when Mellel has cross-references it will also be able to do this.

Would this cover your request? If so, I think this is something that has to be done at the word processor end.

Edit: Word's implementation seems to be limited and a bit buggy. What a surprise. To get it to do "see footnote n on page x, above", you need to enter three cross-references to the same footnote. There's no way that I know to change the 'above' text to 'supra' (except by typing it in and keeping it current manually, of course).
Mellel should be better.

I think what you want is part of the word processor and has nothing to do with Bookends. So I think you will be able you want to do when one day Mellel 2.5 will be released.


But I think for Bookends a cross-ref-option would also be great. An example: Imagine you make a big bibliography of one person who wrote and edited his long life with all his titles. In this case it is very likely there are books which are not only reprinted often but were also published in completely new editions, so that they get their own number. If you have sorted the bibliography not by titles but by date (what would be the case in most of these bibliographies) it would be very fine to have crossrefs like "see Nr. 215" or "see 1967/3". (The last would of course also only work, if Bookends would have a numbering system including the years, what also would be brilliant.)

Second example where I would like crossrefs very much: In your thesis you have an edited book which itself is important for your work as well as some essays from it. If I'm not false informed here, now it is not possible to have a full reference for the edited book and then only cross-refs for the essays from this book.

Maier, E. (Ed.): The Book. Berlin 1983.
Schmidt, A.: An Important Essay. In: Maier 1983, p. 120-150.
instead of
Schmidt, A.: An Important Essay. In: Maier, E. (Ed.): The Book. Berlin 1983, p. 120-150.

So I would say cross-refs would be very good within Bookends. But this is surely not easy to implement, and the seamless integration with Mellel's cross-refs (what most users of both applications would expect I think)
even would make it more complicated I think.

Second example where I would like crossrefs very much: In your thesis you have an edited book which itself is important for your work as well as some essays from it. If I'm not false informed here, now it is not possible to have a full reference for the edited book and then only cross-refs for the essays from this book.

Maier, E. (Ed.): The Book. Berlin 1983.
Schmidt, A.: An Important Essay. In: Maier 1983, p. 120-150.
instead of
Schmidt, A.: An Important Essay. In: Maier, E. (Ed.): The Book. Berlin 1983, p. 120-150.

Yes, me too. This is the only thing that I want from a reference manager that Bookends does not already do.

Having a crossref option in the word processor only partially answers my "wish". Sure this is a must for a bulk of academic writings (especially in the legal field which is ultra-heavy on the use of footnotes generally and for citation specifically), but in regard to citations it only brings you half way - you still need to manually enter the crossref for every subsequent citation and keep track of them; the only thing it does for me (in MSWord for example) is that after crossref are properly (and manually!) entered, it take automatic care of correct re-numbering. But if you, for example, delete a footnote with the first full citation or move it down the stream after the second short citation - the systems fall apart and you need to do it again manually.

What I would like is an option to tell Bookends (eg through a format field) to add in the "secondary" (subsequent), short citations, a footnote number of the first appearance of the citation. This - for all of us forced to use footnote citations - would be a huge benefit!

And I'm not sure this can be done through the Word processor (a WP that could do that would - I guess - have to have a full bibliographical engine incorporated); but could (and I beg your understanding for my simplification of complexity of software development) be done through the
bibliographical software (which already properly recognises multiple appearances of a specific reference in a single document) - Bookends would "only" need additional information from the WP - a number of a in which this first appearance take place... and include that in the formatted text that is pasted from BE to WP after a scan. At least for footnotes that seems possible; for reference to page numbers it is probably impossible (since the formatted citations returned by BE to the WP are of various lengths and can change the pagination) - but they never change to footnote streams.

Reiner wrote: Maier, E. (Ed.): The Book. Berlin 1983.
Schmidt, A.: An Important Essay. In: Maier 1983, p. 120-150.
instead of
Schmidt, A.: An Important Essay. In: Maier, E. (Ed.): The Book. Berlin 1983, p. 120-150.

If I'm not mistaken, Bookends can already approximate this if you have defined a secondary order in the format. You'd cite Maier first, as above, and for Schnidt you'd cite

{Schmidt stuff\ In; \}{Maier stuff@120-150}

Assuming the secondary order and cited pages are defined properly, does that give you the following?

Schmidt, A.: An Important Essay. In: Maier 1983, p. 120-150.

Jon
Sonny Software

Hi Jon,

I tried to make it after reading your post, but I didn't get it to work. Maybe I didn't get the trick. To understand correctly: It is a workaround, what should work, isn't it?

all the best, reiner

I haven't had a chance to try it myself, yet, but I think it should work (but when things get this complicated I can't be sure). What did you get?

Jon
Sonny Software

Both titles can be found in the bibliography but there is no relation between the chapter and the whole book (and I can't imagine how Bookends could "know" about this relation).

But now after rethinking about your post, I have to say I didn't do what you said. I cited both references normally. And I don't understand what you mean with

Jon wrote:{Schmidt stuff\ In; \}{Maier stuff@120-150}

.

I don't want to cite the references as described but have them in the bibliography this way.

If I have understood correctly, what Reiner is after is for Bookends to be aware which edited book each book chapter comes from so that it can
(1) automatically put the edited book in the bibliography (perhaps only if a certain number of chapters from that book are cited in the document -- more than two, for example).
(2) shorten the reference in the bibliography for each chapter whose edited book is also listed.

I suggested this a couple of years ago, I think, around the time 'Duplicate reference as book chapter was implemented', and Jon said then (something like) it would be a lot of work for a rather specialised feature. Fair enough -- although I can't help wishing there was a way to automate this.

The solution I posted, which I tried and seems to work pretty well, is for footnotes. You cite the chapter and, immediately after, the edited book it is from. The output can look like this

Schmidt, A.: An Important Essay. In: Maier 1983, p. 120-150.

which Reiner requested earlier in this thread. This seems to be the solution to that request.

It's not for bibliographies, of course.

Jon
Sonny Software

What I would find very practically indeed is exactly what nicka wrote. I personally have no need for having this in Footnotes (or very very seldom at most). Sorry if I was mistakable.