Patent Items

[libora]

Is it posible to mapping somes Zotero fields to unused CSL fields?

---

attorneyAgent (in roles of patent´s aplicant creator/owner - maybe can be changed name of this field in Zotero or add new item) -> containerAuthor
fillingDate -> submitted
issuingAuthoritiy -> publisher
legalStatus -> status

---

For ISO 690 we need variables in CSL for country (or code of country) and official designation of the series.

ISO Standard 690:2010(E), Information & Documentation - Guidelines for Bibliographic References and Citations to Information Resources, section 15.9 recommends patents be cited similar to a contribution within a journal. The first element listed should be the name of the applicant creator, followed by the title of the patent. The country name or code and the official designation of the series within which the patent resource is numbered should follow. The patent serial number should suffice as numeration.

ISO examples:

Douglass, Elias B. Cow Milker. US Patent 361,213. 1887.

Philip Morris, Inc. Optical Perforating Apparatus and System. European patent application 0021165 A1. 1981-01-07.

Winget Ltd. Detachable Bulldozer Attachment for Dumper Vehicles. Inventor: Reginald John England. 8 March 1967. Appl: 10 June 1963. Int. Cl: E02F 3/76. GB Cl: E1F12. GB Patent Specification 1060631.

[adam3smith]

since all the CSL variables & Zotero fields are here, we could get this into an intermediate Zotero release.
@rmzelle - thoughts? @fbennett - you know most about patents - do the above mappings make sense?
You have the filing -> submitted in MLZ, how about the others.

[rmzelle]

"Attorney/Agent"/attorneyAgent will typically refer to the (external) law firm that helped with drafting and filing the patent application. I don't think this information is ever cited, so I doubt a CSL mapping is necessary. The "Philip Morris, Inc." in the second example is the "Assignee"/assignee (see https://www.google.com/patents/EP0021165A1 ), which is much more relevant. Frank solved this in MLZ by using the "recipient" CSL name variable, which is probably the best fit (see page 74 in http://citationstylist.org/public/mlzbook.pdf (page 84 of the PDF)).

"Filing Date"/filingDate should indeed be mapped to the "submitted" CSL date variable.

Frank uses the "jurisdiction" CSL variable to indicate the patent jurisdiction, and I agree with this. You typically mention the jurisdiction of a patent (e.g. "US patent") in cites, not the publisher ("USPTO"). This could be mapped against "Country"/country, although creating a new "Jurisdiction" field might be better in the long-term (since WO patents aren't country-specific). I'm not totally sure this will be very useful, though, since MLZ relies on some syntactic sugar missing from regular Zotero to match the jurisdiction with the proper string to be rendered in the citation, e.g. "U.S. Patent No.
6,913,465" for jurisdiction "US".

From the examples above it's not clear to me that we need to map "Legal Status"/legalStatus. You can already deduce the status somewhat from the presence or absence of an issued date.

[rmzelle]

We just had another request for an "inventor" term: citation-style-language/locales#86

Presumably we need a dedicated "inventor" name variable as well, so we can use the "inventor" terms as name labels.

[adam3smith]

we now have
fillingDate -> submitted
issuingAuthoritiy -> authority
legalStatus -> status
mapped. Closing this since I don't think we'll map the attorney field.