Re: [ANN] org-bibtex.el --- convert between Org headings and bibtex entries

["Eric Schulte" <schulte.eric@gmail.com>]

Matt Lundin <mdl@imapmail.org> writes:

[...]
>> I understand I may add to the types variable.  When using
>> org-bibtex-create, I can enter any arbitrary field as a PROPERTY;
>> however, org-bibtex ignores anything outside of the universe it knows
>> about.  Would it be bad practice to allow the export of any arbitrary
>> field type one has recorded?  I think the emacs bibtex-mode may
>> recognize erroneous bibtex entries.   
>
> Bibtex-mode does indeed allow for arbitrary fields, as do bibtex and
> biblatex. AFAIK, they are simply ignored when processing a bib file. One
> limitation that arises when storing bibtex data as org properties is
> that properties drawers are used for much more. For instance, one would
> probably not want to see "logging = {lognoterepeat}," in one's exported
> bibtex file.
>
> But for biblatex users, it would indeed be prohibitively expensive to
> have to inform org-mode ahead of time about the innumerable odd fields
> that various biblatex backends define.
>

There is already an option for an org-bibtex specific property name
prefix, (namely `org-bibtex-prefix').  Perhaps when this prefix is used,
and the `org-bibtex' functions is called with a prefix argument (note:
entirely different usage of the term "prefix") then only entries which
begin with the `org-bibtex-prefix' would be exported...  I believe that
should provide a natural way for arbitrary fields to pass through
org-bibtex without the user needing to explicitly name them, or there
being any danger of contamination from existing org-mode properties.

>
>> I am confused by the duplication of file names, though I can see that
>> at some point one of the two will lose.  (Gauss's law of competitive
>> exclusion, referring to the biological case of two species occupying
>> the same ecological niche). 
>
> Eric, the more I think about this, the more my vote would be to package
> this new functionality separately.
>
> IMO, hyperlinking to external data in bib files is somewhat orthogonal
> to storing bib data within org files. In other words, the current
> org-bibtex.el complements bibtex-mode use, whereas the new org-bibtex
> functions, for the most part, are substitutes for bibtex-mode---i.e.,
> they re-implement much of its configuration and basic functionality.
>
> By packaging the new functionality separately perhaps we could lay the
> groundwork for internal, backend agnostic bibliographical export and
> formatting---not unlike the way in which org-contacts.el replaces bbdb.
>

Alright, I think I agree that separate packaging would be the best way
forward given the existing conventions wrt linking to functionality
rather than implementing said functionality.  Also, some integration
with the existing org-bibtex linking functions (as you've mentioned)
would probably address some of Tom's earlier requests for an easy means
of inserting bibtex entries.

The only question now is the one which originally lead me to simply dump
this into org-bibtex, namely, what is a good name?  The first options
that occur to me are
- org-bib
- org-reference
- org-cite

What do you think?  Any better suggestions?

Thanks -- Eric

>
> Wishful thinking?... :)
>
> Best,
> Matt

-- 
Eric Schulte
http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte/