Criteria used in selecting the citation keys

[We are very grateful to Professor Lambert for having offered his valuable advice on these matters. Although utmost care has been taken in the practical realisation of his advice, the Vasudeva Server team assumes all responsibility for any possible mistake found in this bibliography. When such errors are found, we would be very grateful if you could consider telling us about them, using the contact form]

Following is the general criteria used in selecting the citation keys.

Please note that for any kind of broad canon – like the Sri Chinmoy canon listed as subset in this bibliography – exceptions to guidelines are usually, and necessarily, numerous.

Number of letters

Generally,

  • citation keys with only one letter;
  • citation keys with more than four letters (excluding part numbers);

should not be used.

Major works

The major works of a canon, likely to be cited more often than others, should be attributed shorter (possibly two-letter) citation key.

One-word titles

Usually, the first four consonants are used. Example:

  • AngelsANGL

Two-word titles

For two (significant) word titles, the first initial and following consonant of the two words are used.

Example:

  • Brother JesusBRJS
  • Alpha and OmegaALOM

Three-word titles

For three-word titles, the first three initials are generally used.

Example:

  • Bela Chale JaiBCJ

Four-word titles, or longer

For four or more word titles, a work is assigned a three or four-letter citation key, based on the more semantically significant initials of its title, also based on the lexical proximity of the words they designate.

Example:

  • Compassion-Forgiveness Songs on Mother KaliCFMK

If a title is very long (sometimes even more than one sentence), only the initials of the first sentence, selected as per previous criteria, are used.

Example:

  • The Body’s Fitness-Gong, The Soul’s Fulness-SongBFG
  • Are You Looking for Your Heart? Here, Come and Take It!AYL

To differentiate same-initial titles

The second letter of the first and second word is used.

Example:

  • Aspiration-Plants
  • Asha Phul
  • Twenty-Seven Thousand Aspiration-Plants

Since the third work is probably going to be cited more often than the other two, it will be assigned the shorter citation key:

  • Twenty-Seven Thousand Aspiration-PlantsAP

Since the other two titles are different by the second letter of the second word, we use:

  • Aspiration-PlantsASPL
  • Asha PhulASPH

Part numbers

Where the work has been published in multiple volumes, a cite-key is assigned to the series, while each individual volume will be cited with the main cite-key + part number.

In case the work is cited as a whole, only the citation key without part numbers is used.

Example:

  • Twenty-Seven Thousand Aspiration-Plants - part 27 → AP-27
  • Twenty-Seven Thousand Aspiration-Plants, as the series → AP

Different editions of the same work

When a given work has been published by different publishers, the:

cite-key+year

is usually employed.

Citation keys used to address a given work without referring to a particular edition

When no year is cited, it implies we refer to the editio princeps1.

Example:

  • Everest-AspirationEA

Citing parts of a volume

The classical semicolon notation is employed, as it is done often for other major canons:

  • Twenty-Seven Thousand Aspiration-Plants, aphorism 2727 → AP:2727

Citation keys type case

Although there may not be a general consensus about the type case of citation keys, it is generally accepted to use them uppercase as well as lowercase, since the latter sometimes facilitates manual insertion.

Exceptions

In some cases, where the name «God» is used, for the sake of systematisation we chose to respectfully use the two letters GD instead of just G.

Example:

  • God, Avatars and YogisGDAY

  1. [Note by Professor H. Lambert - translation by Vasudeva Server] By calling Sri Chinmoy’s first editions, «editio princeps», we choose to follow classical scholarship criteria, not because we consider Sri Chinmoy’s work antique, but becasue we believe it is among the few post “classical antiquity” works to rightly deserve to be considered a classicus, connoting with that name superiority, authority, and perfection. Although aware that this view may not obtain a universal consensus, we choose to follow that group of scholars that do not believe in attributing classical scholarship to a larger «Science» field; rather, we believe, with them, that it is the smaller science field that belongs to the larger field of Humanities, and that to the all-encompassing field of Life. Because of that, we hold true that methods belonging to the smaller «scientific» field rarely can be used in the vast, sovra-scientific studies. Thus, we have conducted our life-work following that ontological principle.