# REST API - works?query.bibliographic **URL:** \ **Category:** Interfaces for Machines\ **Tags:** rest-api, metadata-retrieval\ **Created:** [23 December 2022 07:44 UTC](https://community.crossref.org/t/rest-api-works-query-bibliographic/3203 "2022-12-23T07:44:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![mnot](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.crossref.org/mnot/32/850_2.png) [@mnot](https://community.crossref.org/u/mnot)\ **Post date:** [23 December 2022 07:44 UTC](https://community.crossref.org/t/rest-api-works-query-bibliographic/3203/1 "2022-12-23T07:44:16Z")
I’m using query.bibliographic to do citation lookups for works. Its documentation says: > query bibliographic information, useful for citation look up, includes titles, authors, ISSNs and publication years This is confusing regarding whether it’s returning a formatted bibliographic entry, or a formatted citation; these are different in some styles. For example, in the Australian Guide to Legal Citation, these have distinct forms. Right now, only the bibliographic form seems to be available. Is there a way to return the citation formatting? If not, can it be added? Thanks, ---
**Author:** ![Shayn](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.crossref.org/shayn/32/57_2.png) [@Shayn](https://community.crossref.org/u/Shayn)\ **Post date:** [23 December 2022 13:36 UTC](https://community.crossref.org/t/rest-api-works-query-bibliographic/3203/2 "2022-12-23T13:36:55Z")
Hi, and thanks for your question. The ‘bibliographic.’ in query.bibliographic refers to what you input in the query, not the format for the data that’s returned. We have a number of field queries that specify that data that you’re querying for. For example. query.affiliation lets you provide a text string and will return all works where that text is part of the affiliation metadata for an author. query.title lets you do the same but for the title. query.bibliographic is more broad than the others. It lets you input any bibliographic metadata - up to a full citation - and will return works where their metadata most closely matches. But, in all cases, the works will be returned as full JSON metadata records. You can query individual DOIs and return formated citations using the Content Negotiation service, which is a collaboration between Crossref, DataCite, and mEDRA. That’s documented at [DOI Content Negotiation](https://citation.crosscite.org/docs.html) And you can find a list of all supported citation styles at [https://api.crossref.org/v1/styles](https://api.crossref.org/v1/styles) Please let me know if you have any further questions. ---
**Author:** ![mnot](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.crossref.org/mnot/32/850_2.png) [@mnot](https://community.crossref.org/u/mnot)\ **Post date:** [24 December 2022 01:23 UTC](https://community.crossref.org/t/rest-api-works-query-bibliographic/3203/3 "2022-12-24T01:23:29Z")
Thanks for that. Yes, I’m using the content negotiation service. What I’m asking is for that service to supply the _citation_, rather than the bilbiographic entry. For example, this is the AGLC style returned by the service currently: > Maher, Imelda, ‘Competition Law and Transnational Private Regulatory Regimes: Marking the Cartel Boundary’ (2011) 38(1) Journal of Law and Society 119 \<\http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2011.00537.x\> Whereas the citation style is: > Imelda Maher, ‘Competition Law and Transnational Private Regulatory Regimes: Marking the Cartel Boundary’ (2011) 38(1) Journal of Law and Society 119 \<\http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2011.00537.x\>. The relevant CSL appears to support outputting both styles, bibliographies \<\https://github.com/citation-style-language/styles/blob/e6b6c6c52177bff930e9140f9171e1242ad57ca3/australian-guide-to-legal-citation.csl#L714\> and citations \<\https://github.com/citation-style-language/styles/blob/e6b6c6c52177bff930e9140f9171e1242ad57ca3/australian-guide-to-legal-citation.csl#L636\>, but crossref only appears to expose the former, unless I’m missing something. (I’ve backslash-escaped links above, since discourse isn’t allowing them) ---
**Author:** ![Shayn](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.crossref.org/shayn/32/57_2.png) [@Shayn](https://community.crossref.org/u/Shayn)\ **Post date:** [27 December 2022 17:33 UTC](https://community.crossref.org/t/rest-api-works-query-bibliographic/3203/4 "2022-12-27T17:33:45Z")
> [@mnot](#): > > For example, this is the AGLC style returned by the service currently: > > > Maher, Imelda, ‘Competition Law and Transnational Private Regulatory Regimes: Marking the Cartel Boundary’ (2011) 38(1) Journal of Law and Society 119 \<\http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2011.00537.x\> > > Whereas the citation style is: > > > Imelda Maher, ‘Competition Law and Transnational Private Regulatory Regimes: Marking the Cartel Boundary’ (2011) 38(1) Journal of Law and Society 119 \<\http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2011.00537.x\>. Is the distinction there only the order of the surname vs given name of the first author? Or, more generally, what points to the current output being a _bibliographic entry_ rather than just a citation style where the format is slightly incorrect? I can report the problem with the AGLC format in particular. There’s some other outstanding work that our technical team has planned for the Content Negotiation service, and I think that would be a pretty straightforward change to include along with it. But, I just want to be sure I understand the full scope of the problem before I report it. Thanks, Shayn ---
**Author:** ![mnot](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.crossref.org/mnot/32/850_2.png) [@mnot](https://community.crossref.org/u/mnot)\ **Post date:** [28 December 2022 00:54 UTC](https://community.crossref.org/t/rest-api-works-query-bibliographic/3203/5 "2022-12-28T00:54:25Z")
> Is the distinction there only the order of the surname vs given name of the first author? Yes (per AGLC 1.13). > Or, more generally, what points to the current output being a _bibliographic entry_ rather than just a citation style where the format is slightly incorrect? Those differences. As I understand the CSL specification ( \https://docs.citationstyles.org/en/stable/specification.html#child-elements-of-cs-style ), each style is required to have a `citation` element and can also optionally have a `bibliography` element; each is a distinct formatting, with the former being for “in-text citations or notes.” Based on the service’s behaviour and my reading of the CSL for AGLC, it appears it only offers the bibliographic formatting. I’d speculate that other styles that have differences between those forms will see similar issues. Cheers, ---
**Author:** ![Shayn](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.crossref.org/shayn/32/57_2.png) [@Shayn](https://community.crossref.org/u/Shayn)\ **Post date:** [4 January 2023 21:13 UTC](https://community.crossref.org/t/rest-api-works-query-bibliographic/3203/6 "2023-01-04T21:13:45Z")
Thanks for clarifying. I’ve reported this issue to our technical team, requesting that both the bibliographic and citation styles be supported, and that they look into any other impacted styles beyond AGLC. A major use case for content negotiation is generating formatted references specifically for use in bibliographic reference lists, so we wouldn’t want to replace the bibliographic style with the citation style. But both should ideally be available.