Citation syntax and ODT

Citation syntax and ODT

[Vaidheeswaran]

Those working on the citation syntax should make it clear that the
"lowest common" cite syntax does NOT also IMPOSE (or GUARANTEE) a
specific style on the produced document.

When I say this, I specifically mean:

1. I want my citation and references to be carried over FAITHFULLY to
    the exported document.

2. I DON'T CARE how (1) is styled.

----------------------------------------------------------------

The above observations would translate to:

The Cite object in it's SIMPLEST form specifies just a citekey (or a
set of citekeys). The Cite-object is qualified with a footnote saying
that any key-value pair -- including "type" -- that is specified with
Cite object MAY BE IGNORED by a backend.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Note that I am not speaking against Bells and Whistles.  I am only
saying that Bells and Whistles MUST NOT be imposed upon a backend like
ODT where the available tools are NOT AS RICH OR AS MATURE AS that
available with other backends like HTML or LaTeX.

----------------------------------------------------------------

A simple search of this discussion list suggests that there already
exists ODT/JabRef implementation.  I hope those who are working on the
syntax also study the EXISTING IMPLEMENTATION and HAVE THAT
IMPLEMENTATION INFORM THE ENTERPRISE.

If someone puts up a draft that (re)-captures the state-of-the-art, I
am willing to do the homework of whetting the spec. against existing
IMPLEMENTATION.

Re: Citation syntax and ODT

[Richard Lawrence]

Hi Vaidheeswaran,

Thanks for your input about citations!

Vaidheeswaran <vaidheeswaran.chinnaraju@gmail.com> writes:

> Those working on the citation syntax should make it clear that the
> "lowest common" cite syntax does NOT also IMPOSE (or GUARANTEE) a
> specific style on the produced document.
>
> When I say this, I specifically mean:
>
> 1. I want my citation and references to be carried over FAITHFULLY to
>    the exported document.
>
> 2. I DON'T CARE how (1) is styled.

I'm afraid I don't quite understand your concern here.  What does it
mean to export a citation faithfully, but without imposing a particular
style (or without giving it any specific formatting properties)?

My understanding (based on the LaTeX world) is that a `style' defines a
broad set of conventions for formatting citations and bibliographies in
the output document.  For example, a style might define citations to be
author-year, or numerical.  Within a style, individual citations can
still have different formatting properties, such as whether it appears
inside parentheses or not.

We haven't really discussed how styles should be specified (yet), or the
formatting of bibliographies.  But we have been discussing a syntax that
lets you specify those formatting properties which commonly differ
between individual citations.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The above observations would translate to:
>
> The Cite object in it's SIMPLEST form specifies just a citekey (or a
> set of citekeys). The Cite-object is qualified with a footnote saying
> that any key-value pair -- including "type" -- that is specified with
> Cite object MAY BE IGNORED by a backend.
>

If I understand what you're saying here correctly, I think this is too
little to expect.  If *all* the formatting information in a citation can
be ignored by any backend, there isn't very much to be gained by having
a citation syntax in Org.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Note that I am not speaking against Bells and Whistles.  I am only
> saying that Bells and Whistles MUST NOT be imposed upon a backend like
> ODT where the available tools are NOT AS RICH OR AS MATURE AS that
> available with other backends like HTML or LaTeX.

I don't really know anything about ODT.  In particular, I don't know if
ODT makes room for a distinction between the overall citation style and
the formatting properties of individual citations.  Can you say a bit
more about what you think its limitations are?

Obviously, we can't impose anything on the formatting of citations which
the output document format is incapable of expressing.  But I can't
think of anything we've discussed for the main syntax that seems likely
to be inexpressible in ODT.

Have you had a chance to read the proposal that I sent around last
weekend?  Are there specific features of the main syntax described there
(ignoring the `%%(...)' part, which it now appears will be dropped) that
you don't think ODT or other backends can support?  If so, I think that
is a concern, and should be discussed.

Best,
Richard

Re: Citation syntax and ODT

[Vaidheeswaran]

On Monday 23 February 2015 09:41 AM, Richard Lawrence wrote:
> Hi Vaidheeswaran,
>
> Thanks for your input about citations!
>
> Vaidheeswaran<vaidheeswaran.chinnaraju@gmail.com>  writes:
>
>> Those working on the citation syntax should make it clear that the
>> "lowest common" cite syntax does NOT also IMPOSE (or GUARANTEE) a
>> specific style on the produced document.
>>
>> When I say this, I specifically mean:
>>
>> 1. I want my citation and references to be carried over FAITHFULLY to
>>     the exported document.
>>
>> 2. I DON'T CARE how (1) is styled.
>
> I'm afraid I don't quite understand your concern here.  What does it
> mean to export a citation faithfully, but without imposing a particular
> style (or without giving it any specific formatting properties)?
>
> My understanding (based on the LaTeX world) is that a `style' defines a
> broad set of conventions for formatting citations and bibliographies in
> the output document.  For example, a style might define citations to be
> author-year, or numerical.  Within a style, individual citations can
> still have different formatting properties, such as whether it appears
> inside parentheses or not.

User:  		I want 'Style Newyork'.

ODT/Jabref:     I don't have 'Style Newyork'.  I can give you 'Style
                 Chicago'.  It is all that I have.

> We haven't really discussed how styles should be specified (yet), or the
> formatting of bibliographies.  But we have been discussing a syntax that
> lets you specify those formatting properties which commonly differ
> between individual citations.

IMO, it is better to roll out the citation feature WITHOUT any
formatting properties.  The specific formatting chosen is at the mercy
of capabilities of the export backend or citation engine it works
with.

>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> The above observations would translate to:
>>
>> The Cite object in it's SIMPLEST form specifies just a citekey (or a
>> set of citekeys). The Cite-object is qualified with a footnote saying
>> that any key-value pair -- including "type" -- that is specified with
>> Cite object MAY BE IGNORED by a backend.
>>
>
> If I understand what you're saying here correctly, I think this is too
> little to expect.  If *all* the formatting information in a citation can
> be ignored by any backend, there isn't very much to be gained by having
> a citation syntax in Org.

In Network protocols, the client and server can negotiate the
parameters of a service.  The actual service is at the intersection of
client and server capabilities.  The RFC itself states what every
compliant client and server implementation should provide at the
minimum.  i.e., There is a basic service which is guaranteed.

In our specific case, a backend like ODT will guarantee a readable and
well-styled document limited from among the choice of styles that the
citation engine -- for eg., Jabref -- itself supports.  The document
so produced may not be acceptable to a publishing house (Focus here
is on a specific style). Neverthless, document will be respectable
enough to be circulated among peers (for a review) or distributable to
wider public (Focus here is on content rather than SPECIFIC
style).

>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Note that I am not speaking against Bells and Whistles.  I am only
>> saying that Bells and Whistles MUST NOT be imposed upon a backend like
>> ODT where the available tools are NOT AS RICH OR AS MATURE AS that
>> available with other backends like HTML or LaTeX.
>
> I don't really know anything about ODT.  In particular, I don't know if
> ODT makes room for a distinction between the overall citation style and
> the formatting properties of individual citations.  Can you say a bit
> more about what you think its limitations are?

> Obviously, we can't impose anything on the formatting of citations which
> the output document format is incapable of expressing.  But I can't
> think of anything we've discussed for the main syntax that seems likely
> to be inexpressible in ODT.

The question is not about expressibility.  The question is about what
is expressible using the current set of tools that are available
off-the-shelf.

Do you think of a scenario where:

1. Org acts like a citation engine.  (A self-contained Org-ecosystem)

2. Org-backends interfaces with a 3rd-party engine (like pandoc,
    zotero, JabRef)

If the current effort is to build (1), ODT backend will have no reason
to complain.

If the effort is geared more towards (2), the ground reality is that
JabRef's style catalog is not as extensive or mature as, say Zotero's
or LaTeXs.  The implication is that the PDF document produced via the
LaTeX document WILL DIFFER IN STYLE from the PDF document produced via
the ODT backend.

I am imagining something along a mix of (1) and (2), with more initial
thrust in favor of (2).

> Have you had a chance to read the proposal that I sent around last
> weekend?  Are there specific features of the main syntax described there
> (ignoring the `%%(...)' part, which it now appears will be dropped) that
> you don't think ODT or other backends can support?  If so, I think that
> is a concern, and should be discussed.

Let me state my position this way:

There was a recent thread (see
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2015-02/msg00650.html)
where a user was having a specific expectation on the ODT engine
dictated by his own (extensive) experience with LaTeX.  Since the ODT
engine, behaved differently, he concluded that "ODT engine was
fragile".  I am not faulting the user's remarks. I am only saying that
the people who work on the specification take sufficient care to
TEMPER what a user can reasonably expect when he moves between
different backends.

My primary motivation is to draw the attention of people like you (who
are hammering out the syntax) to factor the case of a backend-like
ODT.

----------------------------------------------------------------

That said,

Why don't you give us an example an Org-file that uses the new syntax
in it's more BARE MINIMAL FORM (together with it's accompanying .bib
file).  I will pass it via the existing ODT/JabRef backend and
circulate the resulting ODT file to the list.  We can use THIS
specific Org-file as an use-case to think through what each of us are
arguing for and against.

My focus in not so much on syntax-richness but on quick roll-out of
citation support.

I have been in this list mostly as a lurker for a long time.  The
citation proposal never gained much traction as much as it is seen
right now. More importantly I see Nicolas willing to make the
necessary modifications to export engine.  My only suggestion is to
MERELY TO TAKE COGNIZANCE of the need for bells-and-whistles without
the current momentum being dragged down by an attempt to arrive at a
consensus that will keep all parties happy.

Re: Citation syntax and ODT

[Vaidheeswaran]

> More importantly I see Nicolas willing to make the
> necessary modifications to export engine.

Let us JUST ACCEPT what Nicolas is saying and work from there.
Otherwise, the current momentum will peter out (much like earlier
initiatives).

For now, if each of us could just step back a little and focus on
getting just the nose inside the tent, it will be not long before the
camel is inside the tent.  If we are trying to get the whole camel
head-body-and-tail, it is going to be a non-starter.

I am seeing that Nicolas has strong ideas on how the syntax should
look.  He is dithering only because he wants someone to step forward
and puncture his ideas.

Instead of making fresh proposals, it would be efficacious if each of
us could:

1. Orient ourselves in to puncturing the seat that Nicolas is sitting
    on.

2. Focus on the bare minimal functionality agreeable -- agreeable but
    MAY NOT be satisfactory -- to whole spectrum of users right from a
    kindergarterner to a post-doctoral fellow.

Meanwhile, I am opened up a fresh channel with Nicolas as a 
self-appointed representative of ODT users...

Re: Citation syntax and ODT

[Richard Lawrence]

Vaidheeswaran <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:

>> We haven't really discussed how styles should be specified (yet), or the
>> formatting of bibliographies.  But we have been discussing a syntax that
>> lets you specify those formatting properties which commonly differ
>> between individual citations.
>
> IMO, it is better to roll out the citation feature WITHOUT any
> formatting properties.  The specific formatting chosen is at the mercy
> of capabilities of the export backend or citation engine it works
> with.

I still don't understand what it would mean for an exported citation not
to have any formatting properties.  If I write a citation like

  [cite: See @Doe99 p. 43]

how should that be represented in an ODT/HTML/etc. document without any
formatting?  Just copy the text verbatim into the output...?  

According to the proposal we've been discussing, a citation like this is
an in-text (as opposed to parenthetical) citation with a prefix and a
suffix, and thus should render something like

  See Doe (1999, p. 43)

or 

  See Doe [1, p. 43] 

etc.

where the choice between those options would depend on the citation
style.  I agree that there is an issue about those styles; it seems
likely that Org will have to be fairly flexible about those, perhaps
falling back to a default if the requested style is not available on a
particular backend.  (Probably it would be useful, too, to be able to
separately specify styles for LaTeX vs. non-LaTeX backends.)

But whatever style is chosen, I would still think that the fact that the
citation is in-text rather than parenthetical, and that it has a prefix
and suffix, should be represented in the output.  Perhaps not all
backends will be able to do even that at first -- that's fine -- but I
think that should be treated as a bug to be fixed at some point, not as
acceptable behavior.  Do you disagree?  

> Do you think of a scenario where:
>
> 1. Org acts like a citation engine.  (A self-contained Org-ecosystem)
>
> 2. Org-backends interfaces with a 3rd-party engine (like pandoc,
>    zotero, JabRef)
>
> If the current effort is to build (1), ODT backend will have no reason
> to complain.
>
> If the effort is geared more towards (2), the ground reality is that
> JabRef's style catalog is not as extensive or mature as, say Zotero's
> or LaTeXs.  The implication is that the PDF document produced via the
> LaTeX document WILL DIFFER IN STYLE from the PDF document produced via
> the ODT backend.

Yes, that is inevitable, and fine, I think.  But as far as I can tell,
this is an issue of the document-level style selection (Chicago vs. APA
vs. ACM...), not an issue of the more fine-grained differences between
e.g. parenthetical and in-text, or having a prefix or not; these
fine-grained differences are (mostly) independent of the style, and I
think they should be represented in the output.

> I am imagining something along a mix of (1) and (2), with more initial
> thrust in favor of (2).

Me too.  I am guessing we will want to `bless' one or two external
tools, both on the side of reference databases (perhaps Bib(La)TeX and
Zotero, in addition to Org-bibtex) and on the side of formatting
processors (perhaps Bib(La)TeX and citeproc-js or zotxt).  We can then
make it clear that exporting citations to a particular format requires
these tools, much like exporting an Org document to PDF requires a TeX
installation.

> I am only saying that the people who work on the specification take
> sufficient care to TEMPER what a user can reasonably expect when he
> moves between different backends.
>
> My primary motivation is to draw the attention of people like you (who
> are hammering out the syntax) to factor the case of a backend-like
> ODT.

I agree, this is important.  Unfortunately, like I said, I don't
personally know much about ODT, so I need to rely on people who know
more about it (like you) in order to factor in the details.  

> My focus in not so much on syntax-richness but on quick roll-out of
> citation support. ... My only suggestion is to MERELY TO TAKE
> COGNIZANCE of the need for bells-and-whistles without the current
> momentum being dragged down by an attempt to arrive at a consensus
> that will keep all parties happy.

That is fair enough, and I agree.  I would just add that we've worked
pretty hard to come up with a list of features that are important enough
that they should be supported by all backends.  While we might not be
able to implement them all on all backends right away, my hope is that
they eventually will be fully supported.  But you're right, let's not
have the perfect be the enemy of the good in the meantime.
 
Best,
Richard

Re: Citation syntax and ODT

[Vaidheeswaran C]

On Monday 23 February 2015 10:45 PM, Richard Lawrence wrote:


I am not a scholar and never in my lifetime have I produced a document
that uses citations.  My knowledge level is pretty much like that of a
layman.  The questions here could be pretty stupid.  So bear with me.

> But whatever style is chosen, I would still think that the fact that the
> citation is in-text rather than parenthetical, and that it has a prefix
> and suffix, should be represented in the output.

1. When you choose 'style' (Chicago etc.) wouldn't be one of in-text
    or parenthetical already chosen for you?  Stated other way, is the
    choice between parenthetical or in-text document-wide or is it that
    one could intermix the two styles in the same document.

2. Citation processor like JabRef just takes a cite-key.  It doesn't
    take a pre or post-note.  So, the pre and post notes should be
    spliced in to the exported document by the elisp module that
    interfaces with the citation processor.

If we are going to interface with a citation-processor, the best
course of action would be to have someone first 'gauge' the
capabilities provided by the citation processor and let that
experience inform what Org should aspire to do.

Re: Citation syntax and ODT

[Richard Lawrence]

Vaidheeswaran C <vaidheeswaran.chinnaraju@gmail.com> writes:

>> But whatever style is chosen, I would still think that the fact that the
>> citation is in-text rather than parenthetical, and that it has a prefix
>> and suffix, should be represented in the output.
>
> 1. When you choose 'style' (Chicago etc.) wouldn't be one of in-text
>     or parenthetical already chosen for you?  Stated other way, is the
>     choice between parenthetical or in-text document-wide or is it that
>     one could intermix the two styles in the same document.

These could be intermixed in the same document.  The document-level
style determines how each type ultimately looks, but the choice of style
is (mostly) independent of using parenthetical vs. in-text citations.

> 2. Citation processor like JabRef just takes a cite-key.  It doesn't
>     take a pre or post-note.  So, the pre and post notes should be
>     spliced in to the exported document by the elisp module that
>     interfaces with the citation processor.

Right.  That's what I'm thinking, anyway.

> If we are going to interface with a citation-processor, the best
> course of action would be to have someone first 'gauge' the
> capabilities provided by the citation processor and let that
> experience inform what Org should aspire to do.

Yes.  Other people have more experience with this than me.  But based on
what Pandoc is able to do, I am pretty confident that everything that
has been proposed could be handled by a CSL processor like citeproc-js
(or Pandoc's own).  The possible exceptions are the common prefix and
common suffix in a multi-work citation, which I imagine would be easy
enough to add to the output of the citation processor.

Best,
Richard

Re: Citation syntax and ODT

[Alexis]

On 2015-02-24T10:25:39+1100, Richard Lawrence said:

 RL> Vaidheeswaran C <vaidheeswaran.chinnaraju@gmail.com> writes:

 >>> But whatever style is chosen, I would still think that the 
 >>> fact that the citation is in-text rather than parenthetical, 
 >>> and that it has a prefix and suffix, should be represented in 
 >>> the output.
 >> 
 >> 1. When you choose 'style' (Chicago etc.) wouldn't be one of 
 >> in-text or parenthetical already chosen for you?  Stated other 
 >> way, is the choice between parenthetical or in-text 
 >> document-wide or is it that one could intermix the two styles 
 >> in the same document.

 RL> These could be intermixed in the same document.  The RL> 
 document-level style determines how each type ultimately looks, 
 RL> but the choice of style is (mostly) independent of using RL> 
 parenthetical vs. in-text citations.

Fwiw, it seems to me that there might be some confusion here arising
from two separate usages of the word 'style':

(a) 'style' to mean "writing style", i.e. which words are used, 
how they're put together, etc. For example, "Plain English".

(b) 'style' to mean "presentation style", i.e. how words, symbols, 
glyphs etc. are presented visually or (for vision-impaired people) 
aurally. For example, the sort of things specified by Cascading 
Style Sheets.

Thus, the citation 'style' can be independent of the presentation 
style used for that citation style.

For examle, one might have a citation style like:

[Smith 2001]

which in certain contexts is expected to have a presentation style 
of 'bolded'.

So what i understand Vaidheeswaran to be asking is: Please don't 
code things such that presentation style is /necessarily/ carried 
along with citation style. Make it so that exporting a document 
faithfully reproduces the citation style in the target format, but 
don't /force/ the presentation style used in the source format for 
citation style to be the presentation style used in the 
destination format.

Vaidheeswaran, is that correct?


Alexis.

Re: Citation syntax and ODT

[Vaidheeswaran C]

On Tuesday 24 February 2015 08:56 AM, Alexis wrote:
> For examle, one might have a citation style like:
>
> [Smith 2001]
>
> which in certain contexts is expected to have a presentation style of
> 'bolded'.
>
> So what i understand Vaidheeswaran to be asking is: Please don't code
> things such that presentation style is /necessarily/ carried along with
> citation style. Make it so that exporting a document faithfully
> reproduces the citation style in the target format, but don't /force/
> the presentation style used in the source format for citation style to
> be the presentation style used in the destination format.
>
> Vaidheeswaran, is that correct?


That is the sense in which I used the word 'style'.

I also used 'style' in the sense of the relative order or form
(abbreviated or not) of how the fields from citation database entry
gets presented.

I also used 'style' in the sense of Chicago, APA etc.

When Richard uses 'formatting' he really means how pre and post notes
should be injected in to the inline expansion of a citation reference
(in the body text) so that a reader's experience is uneven due to
jarring parenthetical marks.

Even though we use terms differently, (I think) I have a feel for what
the 'big' discussion is about.

May be the citation spec, should come with a glossary of of terms that
defines the sense in which those need to be understood/interpreted :-P

Re: Citation syntax and ODT

[Vaidheeswaran C]

On Tuesday 24 February 2015 04:55 AM, Richard Lawrence wrote:
> Vaidheeswaran C<vaidheeswaran.chinnaraju@gmail.com>  writes:
>
>>> But whatever style is chosen, I would still think that the fact that the
>>> citation is in-text rather than parenthetical, and that it has a prefix
>>> and suffix, should be represented in the output.
>>
>> 1. When you choose 'style' (Chicago etc.) wouldn't be one of in-text
>>      or parenthetical already chosen for you?  Stated other way, is the
>>      choice between parenthetical or in-text document-wide or is it that
>>      one could intermix the two styles in the same document.
>
> These could be intermixed in the same document.  The document-level
> style determines how each type ultimately looks, but the choice of style
> is (mostly) independent of using parenthetical vs. in-text citations.

Often times there is a difference between what is possible and what is
the common practice.  So,

1. How often do you intermix in-text and parenthetical styles.

2. Can the document author re-word his work in such a way that an
    in-text or parenthetical citation could be replaced by the other
    without compromising on the overall style of the produced document.

>> 2. Citation processor like JabRef just takes a cite-key.  It doesn't
>>      take a pre or post-note.  So, the pre and post notes should be
>>      spliced in to the exported document by the elisp module that
>>      interfaces with the citation processor.
>
> Right.  That's what I'm thinking, anyway.
>
>> If we are going to interface with a citation-processor, the best
>> course of action would be to have someone first 'gauge' the
>> capabilities provided by the citation processor and let that
>> experience inform what Org should aspire to do.
>
> Yes.  Other people have more experience with this than me.  But based on
> what Pandoc is able to do, I am pretty confident that everything that
> has been proposed could be handled by a CSL processor like citeproc-js
> (or Pandoc's own).  The possible exceptions are the common prefix and
> common suffix in a multi-work citation, which I imagine would be easy
> enough to add to the output of the citation processor.

In case of JabRef or bibtex2html, it is the 'command line' that is
used for interfacing.

In case of pandoc (I could be wrong here), the nature of interface is
most likely to be a post-processing step on the produced document.
This post-processing could happen as part of elisp hook or the
document may be pipelined through a pandoc provided command-line tool.

The point is that the choice of the citation processor will determine
the nature of investments that need to be made in to the export
module.

JabRef or bibtex2html are really very poor cousins when compared to
modern tools like Zotero.  They would continue to remain poor cousins.
So, I can imagine a scenario where JabRef or bibtex2html is relegated
to the background (i.e., a contrib/ Org-module) while Zotero/Pandoc
takes the prime-time (i.e., a lisp/ Org-module).

In so far as zotero is concerned, there 'used to be' no standalone JS
command-line environment or the toolchain was cumbersome.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I am reluctant to invest my time in citeproc-js or pandoc related
integration work (so far as it concerns ODT exporter).  Part of the
reason for this relucatance is that setting up of the toolchain would
involve more than a simple 'apt-get ...'.  (My Debian is a bit old.)

I am reluctant to work on JabRef integration unless I get an apriori
commitment from the maintainers that it will be part of the Emacs
distribution.

> Best,
> Richard
>
>

Re: Citation syntax and ODT

[Thomas S. Dye]

Vaidheeswaran C <vaidheeswaran.chinnaraju@gmail.com> writes:

> Often times there is a difference between what is possible and what is
> the common practice.  So,
>
> 1. How often do you intermix in-text and parenthetical styles.

Every day?

> 2. Can the document author re-word his work in such a way that an
>    in-text or parenthetical citation could be replaced by the other
>    without compromising on the overall style of the produced document.

Yes, but the author will certainly choose to use a tool that doesn't
require this.

hth,
Tom

-- 
Thomas S. Dye
http://www.tsdye.com

Re: Citation syntax and ODT

[Vaidheeswaran C]

On Tuesday 24 February 2015 10:31 AM, Thomas S. Dye wrote:
> Vaidheeswaran C<vaidheeswaran.chinnaraju@gmail.com>  writes:
>
>> Often times there is a difference between what is possible and what is
>> the common practice.  So,
>>
>> 1. How often do you intermix in-text and parenthetical styles.
>
> Every day?

Ok.

>> 2. Can the document author re-word his work in such a way that an
>>     in-text or parenthetical citation could be replaced by the other
>>     without compromising on the overall style of the produced document.
>
> Yes, but the author will certainly choose to use a tool that doesn't
> require this.

(Let me remind you, when it comes to LaTeX, I have zero knowledge.)

1. When you say 'tool' what exactly do you mean?

2. Give us some concrete examples of what 'this tool' does.

    a) Can an elisp module aspire to replicate what 'this tool' does?

    b) 'The task' that 'this tool' accomplishes, is it 'common' across
       all the citation engines that the participants (in this
       discussion) have in mind.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Org crowd is essentially a LaTeX crowd and Emacs crowd is invariably
academic in nature.  It is for this sole reason, that one often
doesn't hear much frequent complaints regarding lack of citation
support.

(I think), if we could keep the OTHER users -- by this I mean, users
of ASCII or HTML or ODT backends happy or 'just happy' we have made a
good progress.

Pleasing LaTeX crowd, which is already pleased with status-quo seems a
bit pointless to me.  Put other way, the LaTeX crowd should represent
just those aspects which it is displeased with.

Re: Citation syntax and ODT

[Thomas S. Dye]

Aloha Vaidheeswaran C,

Vaidheeswaran C <vaidheeswaran.chinnaraju@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tuesday 24 February 2015 10:31 AM, Thomas S. Dye wrote:
>> Vaidheeswaran C<vaidheeswaran.chinnaraju@gmail.com>  writes:
>>
>>> Often times there is a difference between what is possible and what is
>>> the common practice.  So,
>>>
>>> 1. How often do you intermix in-text and parenthetical styles.
>>
>> Every day?
>
> Ok.
>
>>> 2. Can the document author re-word his work in such a way that an
>>>     in-text or parenthetical citation could be replaced by the other
>>>     without compromising on the overall style of the produced document.
>>
>> Yes, but the author will certainly choose to use a tool that doesn't
>> require this.
>
> (Let me remind you, when it comes to LaTeX, I have zero knowledge.)
>
> 1. When you say 'tool' what exactly do you mean?

A citation manager.

> 2. Give us some concrete examples of what 'this tool' does.

Manages citations.  The author wants to do as little of this as
possible. 

>    a) Can an elisp module aspire to replicate what 'this tool' does?

Yes, I believe so.

>    b) 'The task' that 'this tool' accomplishes, is it 'common' across
>       all the citation engines that the participants (in this
>       discussion) have in mind.

I don't know.  Do other citation engines require that a document author
re-word his work in such a way that in-text or parenthetical citations
could be replaced by the other?

> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Org crowd is essentially a LaTeX crowd and Emacs crowd is invariably
> academic in nature.  It is for this sole reason, that one often
> doesn't hear much frequent complaints regarding lack of citation
> support.

Actually, Org mode supports citations quite well through links, so there
is no need to complain.

In my field of archaeology it is not unusual to find a journal that does
not accept LaTeX.  When the journal requires Word, which is very common,
I've been converting from LaTeX with tex4ht, but it would be neat to
export directly to ODT.

> (I think), if we could keep the OTHER users -- by this I mean, users
> of ASCII or HTML or ODT backends happy or 'just happy' we have made a
> good progress.

Agreed.  Are they unhappy now?  I use the ASCII and HTML exporters
regularly, and I'm quite happy with them.

> Pleasing LaTeX crowd, which is already pleased with status-quo seems a
> bit pointless to me.  Put other way, the LaTeX crowd should represent
> just those aspects which it is displeased with.

There is no displeasure in my corner of the LaTeX crowd.

I believe we are all here on this list because we enjoy Emacs and Org
mode, which is an awesome tool for authors.

All the best,
Tom

-- 
T.S. Dye & Colleagues, Archaeologists
735 Bishop St, Suite 315, Honolulu, HI 96813
Tel: 808-529-0866, Fax: 808-529-0884
http://www.tsdye.com

Re: Citation syntax and ODT

[Vaidheeswaran C]

On Tuesday 24 February 2015 11:37 AM, Thomas S. Dye wrote:
> Aloha Vaidheeswaran C,
>
> Vaidheeswaran C<vaidheeswaran.chinnaraju@gmail.com>  writes:
>
>> On Tuesday 24 February 2015 10:31 AM, Thomas S. Dye wrote:
>>> Vaidheeswaran C<vaidheeswaran.chinnaraju@gmail.com>   writes:
>>>
>>>> Often times there is a difference between what is possible and what is
>>>> the common practice.  So,
>>>>
>>>> 1. How often do you intermix in-text and parenthetical styles.
>>>
>>> Every day?
>>
>> Ok.
>>
>>>> 2. Can the document author re-word his work in such a way that an
>>>>      in-text or parenthetical citation could be replaced by the other
>>>>      without compromising on the overall style of the produced document.
>>>
>>> Yes, but the author will certainly choose to use a tool that doesn't
>>> require this.
>>
>> (Let me remind you, when it comes to LaTeX, I have zero knowledge.)
>>
>> 1. When you say 'tool' what exactly do you mean?
>> 2. Give us some concrete examples of what 'this tool' does.
>>     a) Can an elisp module aspire to replicate what 'this tool' does?
>>     b) 'The task' that 'this tool' accomplishes, is it 'common' across
>>        all the citation engines that the participants (in this
>>        discussion) have in mind.

If someone could respond to above questions with concrete examples I
will give it due attention.

> In my field of archaeology it is not unusual to find a journal that does
> not accept LaTeX.  When the journal requires Word, which is very common,
> I've been converting from LaTeX with tex4ht, but it would be neat to
> export directly to ODT.

I will be happy to excuse myself from this discussion if ODT/JabRef
integration is of no interest to the community.

Re: Citation syntax and ODT

[Thomas S. Dye]

Vaidheeswaran C <vaidheeswaran.chinnaraju@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tuesday 24 February 2015 11:37 AM, Thomas S. Dye wrote:
>> Aloha Vaidheeswaran C,
>>
>> Vaidheeswaran C<vaidheeswaran.chinnaraju@gmail.com>  writes:
>>
>>> On Tuesday 24 February 2015 10:31 AM, Thomas S. Dye wrote:
>>>> Vaidheeswaran C<vaidheeswaran.chinnaraju@gmail.com>   writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Often times there is a difference between what is possible and what is
>>>>> the common practice.  So,
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. How often do you intermix in-text and parenthetical styles.
>>>>
>>>> Every day?
>>>
>>> Ok.
>>>
>>>>> 2. Can the document author re-word his work in such a way that an
>>>>>      in-text or parenthetical citation could be replaced by the other
>>>>>      without compromising on the overall style of the produced document.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but the author will certainly choose to use a tool that doesn't
>>>> require this.
>>>
>>> (Let me remind you, when it comes to LaTeX, I have zero knowledge.)
>>>
>>> 1. When you say 'tool' what exactly do you mean?
>>> 2. Give us some concrete examples of what 'this tool' does.
>>>     a) Can an elisp module aspire to replicate what 'this tool' does?
>>>     b) 'The task' that 'this tool' accomplishes, is it 'common' across
>>>        all the citation engines that the participants (in this
>>>        discussion) have in mind.
>
> If someone could respond to above questions with concrete examples I
> will give it due attention.

AFAIK, the only software that has proposed a solution to the problem of
maintaining a citation database that can support the universe of
citation styles developed "in the wild" is BibLaTeX.  I've been trying
to impart what I know of this so the citation syntax developed by the
Org mode community doesn't limit what Org mode can do in the future.
I'm not too concerned if the backend support is uneven at first.  I'll
be happy if the syntax doesn't have to change as citation support in ODT
and other backends matures, as it certainly will.

BibLaTeX includes a well-written manual that has influenced my thinking
on citation managers.  I recommend it highly.

>> In my field of archaeology it is not unusual to find a journal that does
>> not accept LaTeX.  When the journal requires Word, which is very common,
>> I've been converting from LaTeX with tex4ht, but it would be neat to
>> export directly to ODT.
>
> I will be happy to excuse myself from this discussion if ODT/JabRef
> integration is of no interest to the community.

No offense intended.  I tried, apparently unsuccessfully, to indicate my
interest in Org mode support for ODT.  Let me indicate my interest
again.  I would definitely like to export my documents to ODT so I can
submit them directly to journals in my field that require Word files.
The translation through tex4ht is, for me, an adventure and I'd much
prefer to skip it if I could.

I have no idea if this is possible with the citation managers that work
with ODT.  I'll be pleased to learn that it is possible, and happy to
wait if it is not.

I fully expect that other users have different needs, I'm just trying to
indicate my interest in Org mode support for ODT citations here.

All the best,
Tom

-- 
Thomas S. Dye
http://www.tsdye.com

Re: Citation syntax and ODT

[Jorge A. Alfaro-Murillo]

Thomas S. Dye writes:

> AFAIK, the only software that has proposed a solution to the 
> problem of maintaining a citation database that can support the 
> universe of citation styles developed "in the wild" is BibLaTeX. 

Well with BibTeX alone you can maintain a citation database and to 
support any citation style, you just:

"reverse polish notation"
know?
'skip
{"reverse polish notation" learn}
if
"citation style"
write

-- 
Jorge.