Sonny Software

I want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. Metatypes are called in bibliographies by references to the child element, correct? Meaning that for the built-in metatype "Review–Work Reviewed," assuming I've done the necessary Formats Manager voodoo, a reference to {Work Reviewed} will result in a bibliographic entry listing a review of that work instead.

Isn't that backwards? Shouldn't "Review" be the child of "Work Reviewed"? It seems more likely that I would want to make a reference to {Review} and be able to call certain elements from the Work Reviewed into that bibliographic entry.

Sorry if I've misunderstood anything!

I would consider the Review to the be the parent and the (possibly many) works reviewed the children. But of course your perspective may be different (and if so you can change Bookends to match). But it shouldn't matter. In the metatype format, anything from the child is not included in square brackets, anything from the parent is. So you can begin the format with the parent if you like:

[a] t [d]

or the child

a [t] d

(these are just nonsense examples).

You can also define your own relationships if you're not keen on mine and use those. The names given them are arbitrary and not actually used to check the crosslink relationships. So you can even define a second "Work"/"Word Reviewed" pair, or replace the one we provide with your own, in preferences.

Jon
Sonny Software

Jon wrote:I would consider the Review to the be the parent and the (possibly many) works reviewed the children.

Hmm. I can see how that might be the right way to see the relationship from the perspective of metadata, but I can't see how this would work in a (humanities) bibliography, since you'd never be able to call the reviewed work without the review. Nonetheless, I am delighted that Bookends lets me do whatever I want!