BibTeX, biblatex and biber[BibLatex] Set entry option depending on citations processed

Information and discussion about BiBTeX - the bibliography tool for LaTeX documents.
Post Reply
jayjay
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:17 am

[BibLatex] Set entry option depending on citations processed

Post by jayjay »

Hello everybody,

I use biblatex to manage my citations to reported court cases. Many court cases are published in different reporters. The "Canadian Guide to Uniform Legal Citation" (McGill guide) requires one to identify the reporter the pinpoint (i.e. the postnote) refers to, if any reference to this particular case includes a pinpoint. The way I have handled that is by using the field "origitle" to include the name of the reporter used by me, where therefore the pinpoints refer to. However, I want to print the "origtitle" field only if any citation of this particular entry have a defined postnote. The reason is that the McGill requires one to identify the reporter used only in cases where there actually is a pinpoint. Otherwise, it does not make any sense to identify the reporter used because it would not make any difference. However, often times, the first citation of an entry would not have a postnote, because when I introduce the case, I do not have a specific pinpoint I am referring to. Thus, my question would be:

How can I run a test in BibLatex that sets a boolean value for one entry to true if at least one citation of this particular entry has a defined postnote? I realise that this would require an additional latex run, because the boolean can only be set with certainty once all citations of the entry have been processed.

I hope this question can be answered without a MWE.

Cheers,

JJ

Recommended reading 2024:

LaTeXguide.org • LaTeX-Cookbook.net • TikZ.org

NEW: TikZ book now 40% off at Amazon.com for a short time.

jayjay
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:17 am

Re: [BibLatex] Set entry option depending on citations proce

Post by jayjay »

So I have noticed some people have looked at my question. I am curious: Is it badly worded, or understandable but hard to answer? (I assume it is the former). Cheers, JJ
Post Reply