Hi, I am trying out `org-cite' right now. It works much better than the last time (I am using the `biblatex' backend right now). However, I can not find any documentation about the available /styles/. They are mentioned here: But no styles are provided. For example, I need citations in the text (showing up as “Author(s) (Year)”). With BibTeX, this would be `\citet{}' (or `\textcite{}' with BibLaTeX). But there is a lot more. See: ). Thank you for working on `org-cite', and `org-ref'! Dominik Timothy writes: > Hi John, > > Thanks for your considered response. > > When you contrast org-cite and org-ref, you say: > >> With org-ref, bib(la)tex export is almost fully supported, and is easy, > > I find this odd as org-cite supports bib(la)tex export, and rather easily. > > ┌──── > │ #+bibliography: references.bib > │ #+cite_export: biblatex authortitle/authortitle-ibid > │ > │ (NO_ITEM_DATA:key) etc. > │ > │ #+print_bibliography: > └──── > > The limitation which I think is on your mind is that not all bib(la)tex commands > are supported, and not in the “usual” form. For instance, to get `pnotecite’ one > would use `[cite/locators:]’. However, to get a 1-to-1 name mapping, you can just > customise `org-cite-biblatex-styles’. For instance, `parencite’ is not currently > available, but if I just add `(“parencite” nil “parencite” nil nil)’ I can then do > `[cite/parencite:]’ or if I replace the first `“parencite”’ with `“paren”’, just > `[cite/paren:]’. > > A package could be created, say `org-cite-literal-biblatex’ which is just a copy > of `oc-biblatex.el’ with a different default `org-cite-biblatex-styles’ and > `org-cite-biblatex-style-shortcuts’ (or just sets those variables in > `org-cite-biblatex’). As far as I can tell this would provide exactly the > functionality you say org-cite can’t provide but org-ref does. > > You can already use `.bib’ files, and so frankly I cannot myself see the point in > org-ref’s existence beyond bifurcating the community on this. At this point the > only remaining motivation I see is old documents and current users, and for this > a migration tool seems more appropriate. > > I don’t mean to be overly critical, however this is my current honest assessment > of the situation. > > – > All the best, > Timothy > > John Kitchin writes: > >> I do not think it is productive for the community to say or consider it >> is a sad situation. Many good things have emerged from these >> discussions, even if it is not yet consensus on a solution. It is a >> complex problem, with many years of effort by many people on each side. >> That is an indication of how ambitious this project is and that there >> may be more than one solution that is needed. It pains me quite a bit >> there is a sentiment of fractionation, and that I may be contributing to >> it. >> >> My regular job workload the past few years has been crushing, and I have >> not had the time to participate in this that I wish I had. I am not sure >> I can add much here without sounding or feeling defensive about org-ref, >> and my decision to continue supporting and developing it. I have thought >> about this for most of the day, and in the (very long, apologies in >> advance) response that follows I will do my best to provide a balanced >> perspective (from my point of view) on the situation. >> >> Some specific context that is important to me is that I wrote org-ref >> long ago to solve a specific problem for me in the preparation of >> scientific publications that are destined for LaTeX export. I intended >> it to provide nearly equivalent bib(la)tex citation export, and as >> reasonable an export as possible for everything else. I use org-ref >> professionally, and it is a complete solution for me. I simply cannot >> compromise on the capability org-ref provides me, or wait for an >> alternative complete solution in org-mode. I have work I have to do now, >> and org-ref lets me do it. This alone is reason enough for me to >> continue using, developing and supporting org-ref. I understand org is >> not intended to be a substitute for writing LaTeX, but it is a fact of >> my job that I have to do that. >> >> There are more than 8 years of legacy org-ref documents. I have written >> 40+ scientific papers with it, and countless technical documents with >> more than 8000 cite links among them. org-ref has exceeded 190K >> downloads from MELPA, so I feel obligated to maintain org-ref for >> myself, and those users. org-ref may be heavyweight in bundling a lot of >> capability together that could be separated into individual packages, >> but it is also convenient for people who need it, and a GitHUB issue or >> pull request away from new features. I remain committed to supporting >> this, and I do it in a way I can manage, hence the monolithic package >> design. >> >> org-cite was also developed to solve some specific citation problems for >> others that org-ref did not address well at the time it was started. I >> believe those were issues like better pre/post note support, and >> integration with CSL. >> >> I think org-ref and org-cite have different priorities, they solve >> different problems with different approaches, and they have different >> pros and cons. I believe there are mutually incompatible compromises one >> must make here because the specific choices you make determine what is >> easy and what is possible. There is not a direct mapping of bib(la)tex >> and CSL as a citation processor. They are different programs and they >> don’t share citation commands, or style information. It is inevitable >> that something will be lost in the translation between these from a >> single source like org, and whether that loss is acceptable depends on >> what you need. For many things, close enough is ok for me, but for >> manuscripts and proposals, they must be perfect, and in bib(la)tex form >> for the journals I publish in. It is not that one thing is possible in >> one and not the other; it is that you have to compromise one to do the >> other no matter what you choose and that typically makes one thing or >> the other easier to do. I am not even sure it is possible to do >> everything one can do in bib(la)tex with CSL, for example, I don’t know >> the equivalent of in CSL. org-ref sides on making bib(la)tex >> easy, and CSL is possible. >> >> With org-cite, CSL can be readily used across export backends, more >> bibliography database formats are supported, and it is also possible to >> get LaTeX export, although there is no goal to fully support all of >> bib(la)tex. A pure org approach (e.g. org-files as bibliography >> database) can be used, there are a lot of CSL styles to work with, and >> you can develop or adapt your own style if needed. With reasonable >> defaults this should be a straightforward introduction to using >> citations for new users that works out of the box. I support that. >> >> With org-ref, bib(la)tex export is almost fully supported, and is easy, >> and other exports via CSL are possible. Of course, you must have a >> working LaTeX installation, only bibtex databases are supported, and >> working knowledge of bib(la)tex is required to leverage this. Whether >> you want it or not, you get a lot of extra utilities for getting bibtex >> entries from a DOI, and support for cross-references, indexes, >> glossaries and acronyms. This is a lot to ask of people who don’t need >> it, and convenient for those who do. I support this. >> >> Which one of these approaches is right depends on what you want to be >> easy. Neither is right or wrong, that is determined by what you need at >> the time and what you prioritize in your solution. It is even possible >> you need both approaches at different times. The two approaches are not >> compatible, but it is org-mode after all, and you can certainly convert >> back and forth between them for the most part. >> >> Both projects have benefited from this discussion a lot. org has >> org-cite now, and org-ref now handles pre/post notes like org-cite does, >> it supports CSL much better, and is even a little more modular, lighter >> weight, and more easily integrated with other completion backends than >> ivy or helm. That should broadly be viewed as a win-win situation. >> >> Here are some factors that have prevented me from deprecating org-ref. I >> spent about a month and half trying to get a solution to this at >> , and I don’t make these >> observations lightly. That solution was complete and highly functional >> for org-cite, but as I describe below not a replacement for org-ref at >> this time. I still welcome a new maintainer for this code. >> >> Cross-references are critical for me; without them, there is no path >> forward for me with org-cite. I did work on a cross-reference approach >> that leveraged org-cite syntax >> (), but there was not >> much appetite for the approach so I abandoned that. There are >> cross-reference capabilities in org, that may be suitable for some >> applications, but they do not come close to what org-ref offers, and >> that the kind of technical documents I write require. For me, any >> cross-reference capability would also have to support what is possible >> in LaTeX, and preferrably look similar to the LaTeX commands. It has not >> been possible to write an orthogonal package that could co-exist with >> org-ref to address this; this would require a new syntax for >> cross-references in my opinion. My opinion is that practically citations >> and cross-references are just links to a place in your document (either >> a figure/table/section/etc, or an entry in a bibliography). In org-ref, >> both are represented by links; of course, they have different types and >> functions, but they both have follow like actions. My opinion seems to >> be in the minority on this. >> >> I do not like the abstraction away from LaTeX cite commands in org-cite. >> This is an example of a compromise between LaTeX and CSL. They do not >> share common citation commands, so you can either choose one or the >> other, or make a new abstraction that generalizes them. I strongly favor >> the LaTeX commands because I write for LaTeX export, and there is >> extensive documentation for how to cite in LaTeX and what to expect. >> Clearly org-cite favors using the standardized abstractions in org-cite, >> and then mapping them to the LaTeX commands I think. My perspective on >> this is partially one of an educator; I have taught a lot of people how >> to use org-mode for technical writing. This layer of abstraction adds >> additional complexity to documentation, and in teaching people what to >> do. As a LaTeX-centric user, that abstraction adds an additional >> cognitive load while writing I find unwelcome. I concede that it also >> reflects “what I do”, that org is not LaTeX, and that others may have a >> more CSL centric perspective. org-cite is for them. I can see that the >> abstraction away from the LaTeX cite commands strengthens the org is not >> LaTeX philosophy, and will serve part of the community well. If I wasn’t >> required to generate LaTeX documents, and teach others how to do it, I >> would not feel so strongly. >> >> It is my opinion that the modularity of org-cite is a challenge. I think >> it is too difficult to configure, and difficult to support, even more so >> than org-ref. I know my opinion differs from many on the list who want >> modularity and configurability. I have supported org-ref since around >> 2014, and even the modularity there (helm or ivy) has been a challenge >> to support. org-ref has always been configurable, but monolithic. Still, >> I learned a lot from Bruce (thank you!) that pushed me to redesign parts >> of org-ref to be more modular and more easily pluggable to other >> completion backends, and less specific on ivy/helm where practical. >> There are limitations to this I learned about, compromises one has to >> choose in doing it, and consequences in maintenance, support and >> documentation from them. We still don’t fully agree on some of these >> points, but org-ref is closer to that ideal than it was. Maybe one day I >> will abandon ivy like I did helm many years ago and feel differently >> about this, but that day is sufficiently far away that I don’t see it >> now. >> >> Finally, the org-cite code is magnificent, and written at a level well >> above my coding skills. I am grateful to those who wrote it, and >> especially to Nicolas, for the opportunity to learn from it. The code I >> wrote in org-ref-cite was challenging. org-cite uses (IMO) advanced >> emacs-lisp techniques, and more complex data structures than I am >> accustomed to. I learned a lot studying the org-cite code, but I will be >> honest that I find it difficult to make contributions to. That gave me >> pause in continuing to develop it. It is fair to say that org-cite >> showed me some ways to address limitations of org-ref that I did not see >> before, org-ref is better for it, and the writing community that uses >> pre/post notes and biblatex is much better served as a result. >> >> Where does this leave me, org-ref and org-cite? I still have differences >> of opinion on design choices between them, and those differences are >> likely irreconcilable. These differences arise from my experiences in >> writing, teaching, using, developing and supporting org-ref. For those >> who need high fidelity LaTeX export like I do, I think org-ref is still >> a superior solution. For everyone else, and especially if you do not >> need sophisticated cross-references and don’t want the dependencies of >> org-ref, org-cite is likely the better solution. >> >> I am content to agree to disagree on these points and move forward with >> both packages because they solve different problems, are suitable for >> different communities, and they continue to benefit each other. I can >> see not everyone sees this as a positive situation though, and that has >> weighed heavily upon me lately. These times are heavy enough. Anyway, >> this turned out much longer than I expected, so thanks everyone who has >> contributed to making org better, I hope I got things mostly correct, >> you found it a fair assessment, we might still be friends, and thanks >> for reading to the end. >> >> j