Hi,

the wonders of intellectual activities give the following

@BOOK{Pen-16,
AUTHOR = {Penrose, R.},
TITLE = {The emperor's new mind},
YEAR = {2016},
PUBLISHER = {Oxford University Press},
address = {Oxford (UK)},
edition = {7th revised impression},
}

Using biblatex, of course, this will not give what is intended. I can't
cite the first edition of the book of 1989, for, after all, my copy was
"revised". But it is a new "impression", rather than an "edition". So,
now what do I do?!

Thanks
Engelbert

On 10/05/2022 09:34, Dr Engelbert Buxbaum wrote:
> the wonders of intellectual activities give the following
>
> @BOOK{Pen-16,
> AUTHOR = {Penrose, R.},
> TITLE = {The emperor's new mind},
> YEAR = {2016},
> PUBLISHER = {Oxford University Press},
> address = {Oxford (UK)},
> edition = {7th revised impression},
> }
>
> Using biblatex, of course, this will not give what is intended. I can't
> cite the first edition of the book of 1989, for, after all, my copy was
> "revised". But it is a new "impression", rather than an "edition". So,
> now what do I do?!

According to the biblatex documentation, the 'edition' field must be an
integer, so

EDITION = {7},

and you use the 'note' field for anything else:

>> [...] Publication facts such as “Reprint of the edition London
>> 1831” are typical candidates for the note field.

NOTE = {revised impression},

But this doesn't take account of the note as part of the edition:

Penrose, R. (2016). The emperor’s new mind. 7th ed. revised impression.
Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press.

An impression is not an edition, and biblatex probably needs to have a
way to deal with this. Rather than add yet another main field, perhaps a
key like editiontype (along the lines of editortype) would be useful, eg

EDITIONTYPE = {revised impression}.

You still have to persuade the authors of the formatters to check for it
and do something meaningful with it :-) but at least it's now clear that
the value belongs to the 'edition' field and not to some other part of
the entry.

Perhaps MLA or APA experts could say if this is provided for in those
formats.

Peter

On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 1:55:35 AM UTC+12, peter wrote:
> On 10/05/2022 09:34, Dr Engelbert Buxbaum wrote:
> > the wonders of intellectual activities give the following
> >
> > @BOOK{Pen-16,
> > AUTHOR = {Penrose, R.},
> > TITLE = {The emperor's new mind},
> > YEAR = {2016},
> > PUBLISHER = {Oxford University Press},
> > address = {Oxford (UK)},
> > edition = {7th revised impression},
> > }
> >
> > Using biblatex, of course, this will not give what is intended. I can't
> > cite the first edition of the book of 1989, for, after all, my copy was
> > "revised". But it is a new "impression", rather than an "edition". So,
> > now what do I do?!
> According to the biblatex documentation, the 'edition' field must be an
> integer, so
>
> EDITION = {7},
>
> and you use the 'note' field for anything else:
>
> >> [...] Publication facts such as “Reprint of the edition London
> >> 1831” are typical candidates for the note field.
>
> NOTE = {revised impression},
>
> But this doesn't take account of the note as part of the edition:
>
> Penrose, R. (2016). The emperor’s new mind. 7th ed. revised impression.
> Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press.
>
> An impression is not an edition, and biblatex probably needs to have a
> way to deal with this. Rather than add yet another main field, perhaps a
> key like editiontype (along the lines of editortype) would be useful, eg
>
> EDITIONTYPE = {revised impression}.
>
> You still have to persuade the authors of the formatters to check for it
> and do something meaningful with it :-) but at least it's now clear that
> the value belongs to the 'edition' field and not to some other part of
> the entry.
>
> Perhaps MLA or APA experts could say if this is provided for in those
> formats.
>
> Peter

On the backs of title pages of the books in my office I found 9 different ways to describe a book that wasn't just an unaltered reprint:

Second edition
Revised and enlarged edition
Reprinted with corrections
Reprinted (revised)
Reprinted with additions
Reprinted with additions and corrections
Second impression (revised)
Second impression, revised
Corrected reprint

On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 9:50:06 AM UTC+12, jfh wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 1:55:35 AM UTC+12, peter wrote:
> > On 10/05/2022 09:34, Dr Engelbert Buxbaum wrote:
> > > the wonders of intellectual activities give the following
> > >
> > > @BOOK{Pen-16,
> > > AUTHOR = {Penrose, R.},
> > > TITLE = {The emperor's new mind},
> > > YEAR = {2016},
> > > PUBLISHER = {Oxford University Press},
> > > address = {Oxford (UK)},
> > > edition = {7th revised impression},
> > > }
> > >
> > > Using biblatex, of course, this will not give what is intended. I can't
> > > cite the first edition of the book of 1989, for, after all, my copy was
> > > "revised". But it is a new "impression", rather than an "edition". So,
> > > now what do I do?!
> > According to the biblatex documentation, the 'edition' field must be an
> > integer, so
> >
> > EDITION = {7},
> >
> > and you use the 'note' field for anything else:
> >
> > >> [...] Publication facts such as “Reprint of the edition London
> > >> 1831” are typical candidates for the note field.
> >
> > NOTE = {revised impression},
> >
> > But this doesn't take account of the note as part of the edition:
> >
> > Penrose, R. (2016). The emperor’s new mind. 7th ed. revised impression.
> > Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press.
> >
> > An impression is not an edition, and biblatex probably needs to have a
> > way to deal with this. Rather than add yet another main field, perhaps a
> > key like editiontype (along the lines of editortype) would be useful, eg
> >
> > EDITIONTYPE = {revised impression}.
> >
> > You still have to persuade the authors of the formatters to check for it
> > and do something meaningful with it :-) but at least it's now clear that
> > the value belongs to the 'edition' field and not to some other part of
> > the entry.
> >
> > Perhaps MLA or APA experts could say if this is provided for in those
> > formats.
> >
> > Peter
> On the backs of title pages of the books in my office I found 9 different ways to describe a book that wasn't just an unaltered reprint:
>
> Second edition
> Revised and enlarged edition
> Reprinted with corrections
> Reprinted (revised)
> Reprinted with additions
> Reprinted with additions and corrections
> Second impression (revised)
> Second impression, revised
> Corrected reprint

I prepared that list before 2018. Since then I have found another oddity, in two copies of a book that say the same thing on the backs of their title pages:

This edition published 2018

but the one I bought this year contains some corrections that the other does not!