Which fields to use for "non-standard" reporter subdivisions

[georgd]

@fbennett @denismaier I’d like to hear some advice on which fields to use for "non-standard" reporter citations:

I have difficulties to find the best fit for some citation elements for specially organised reporters. In the German speaking countries, I could identify these:

1. Journals that are organised by the statutes which the decisions are referring to: besides the court abbrev and decision date, a case citation uses the elements journal abbrev, statute (incl. exact pinpoint) and no. of reported case refferring to this statute in this reporter volume (relatively frequent in DE). E.g.: BGH, 24.11.1975, LM § 626 BGB Nr. 18. ("LM" is the reporter, "§ 626 BGB" is the statute reference).
2. Special case of the above: a reporter is organised in thematic sections which in turn are organised by the statutes which the decisions are referring to. E.g: BVerwG, 9.1.1999, Buchholz 310 § 65 VwGO Nr. 131. (310 is the thematic section).
3. A reporter where the yearly volumes are organised in thematic volumes. This is the case for the official reporter of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court which is cited by reporter abbrev, volume no., thematic volume (in roman numerals), and first page no.. E.g.: BGE 129 III 426.

All three have in common a thematic subdivision of the journal volume and I think, it might be safe to put the entire subdivision in one field – be it the thematic volume from case 3, the statute reference from 1 or the combined section and statute reference from 2. The question is, in which field would you put the thematic subdivision and the reported case number? Document Name and Document Number could be used, while the field labels are not really intuitive. What do you think?