Hi,

Christian Moe <mail@christianmoe.com> writes:

>> Blah blah [see @doe99, pp. 33-35; also @smith04, ch. 1].
>
> In my current homebrewn solution for Zotero, I have tried to do
> something similarly readable using Org link syntax (sorry, Rasmus!) with
> the database entry ID as link target, and parsing the description part
> for prefix/author-date/locator/suffix, but with a slightly different
> syntax than Pandoc uses. In my solution the above would be:
>
> Blah blah [[zotero:0_A43F89;0_E25CB3][(see: Doe 1999: p.33-35; also:
> Smith 2004: ch. 1)]].

The problem is that your information can become out of sync if you are not
careful, e.g.:

> [[zotero:0_A43F89;0_E25CB3][(see: Doe 1999: p.33-35; also: Smith 2004: ch. 1)]]
> [[zotero:0_A43F89;0_E25CB3][(see: Forbar 1999: p.33-35)]]

IMO nice displays should be solved with overlays(?) like org-entities,
tex-fold-mode etc.

>> Does anyone have citation needs that this syntax doesn't cover?
>
> It's great, as long as your database uses mnemonic citekeys like
> doe99. Zotero doesn't, but uses keys that are meaningless to humans,
> like 0_A43F89.  Unfortunately [see @0_A43F89, p. 5] wouldn't look nearly
> as nice as [see @doe99, p.5], and it wouldn't help you remember what you
> referenced.

Selection is solved by Reftex or Zotero or whatever.  Still, bad keys are
an issue!  One idea would be to allow file-specific pointers to citations
or allow easy insertion of entries in org-bibtex format.


> But that workflow doesn't help with something I often want to do, which
> is to export to ODT and have 'live' Zotero citations that I can continue
> to work with in LibreOffice.

Are they like bib(la)tex citations?  Like with click and dynamic
bibliography and the like.

> Possibly more work if it's worth if we adopt Pandoc syntax,
> since Pandoc-citeproc seems to handle nearly everything that is based on
> plain text.

bibtex.el and org-bibtex.el seems rather competent.  Of course, styles is
an issue.

Here's my notes on this topic: