Finishing and checking both mappings
Tags: citationjs, ris
Published: 2019-08-06 16:03:22

---
title: Finishing and checking both mappings
published: true
tags: Citation.js,RIS
canonical_url: https://larsgw.blogspot.com/2019/08/citationjs-ris-rework-pt-2.html
series: "RIS plugin rework"
---
  

In the [last post](https://dev.to/citation-js/creating-a-ris-mapping-from-the-original-specification-1kfo) I explained how I started implementing the RIS specification that I found in the Internet Archive, only to discover that there is an older specification, which seems to be more common at times.

Now, I have implemented the old spec, which luckily was not nearly as complex. One thing that came to my attention was that there were a lot of redundant tags: for title, there are `TI`, `T1`, `CT` and usually `BT`; for journal names there’s `JO` & `JF`, and `JA`, `J1`, & `J2` for abbreviated journal names. While I can imagine some nuanced difference in meaning between those tags, those meanings are not documented, and not trivial to figure out either. Anyway, that is not a problem for the implementation.

I also updated the implementation of the new spec, to fix some mistakes and add some more mappings. In addition, because in real life there seem to be some implementations that export a mix of the two specifications, I created an implementation based on the new spec, that if needed can defer to the old one — and some random properties that Wikipedia and Zotero have picked up somewhere, and are not in either spec.

How do the results look? First of all, the example that was giving me issues in the last post looks a lot nicer now:

```js
{ issue: '1',
  page: '230-265',
  type: 'article-journal',
  volume: '47',
  title: 'On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem',
  author: [{ family: 'Turing', given: 'Alan Mathison' }],
  issued: { 'date-parts': [[ 1937 ]] },
  'container-title': 'Proc. of London Mathematical Society' }
```

The only thing that was missing when I first tried this out was the end of the page range, because `SP` in the new spec is the entire page range, while in the old spec you need both `SP` and `EP`. I had to fix that manually — not a problem, just something to keep in mind when re-running the scripts.

One other thing to check was how to the mappings look from above, without all the type-specific shenanigans. I keep [a (public) spreadsheet](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13BQg5lg29VkRb4appz-eh1jcQsfI-0rdCTdmvpg577M/edit?usp=sharing) with mappings from CSL-JSON to all kinds of different formats, so I added the RIS mappings. So, a sanity check. Does it make sense?

![RIS mappings](https://thepracticaldev.s3.amazonaws.com/i/v3uwmjcx11fp62v5slz0.png "RIS mappings")

_No_, not at all! The RIS tag `SE` is mapped to 10 different CSL variables, and the CSL `number` variables is mapped to 9 different RIS tags. To me, it does not make any sense, even accounting for the fact that I know there is some variation between entry types.

The question that remains is, does it work? Even if it does not look like it makes sense, the output could still make sense, if other implementations follow the specification to a similar degree. I know Zotero does not entirely follow it — all the spec anomalies that _are_ implemented are attributed to weird EndNote quirks, not the weird _spec_ quirks.

That made me wonder to what degree the EndNote implementation follows the specification. However, I do not have EndNote, so this is a call to action! Can you help me with clearing up the RIS cloud for me by submitting your RIS exports to [a CC0-licensed repo](https://github.com/citation-js/ris-examples/tree/master/EndNote)? Preferably with all kinds of reference types — articles, books, chapters, conference papers, webpages, software, patents, bills, maps, artworks, whatever you can find. For legal reasons, please replace abstracts and other copyrightable content by `[... omitted]`.

In the meantime, I will be collecting RIS exports from other sources, like Zotero and Mendeley and websites like Google Scholar, BMC and PubMed Central. If you know of any other sources, please let me know!