From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp12.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id 6BNiC77bN2KnfwAAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 02:58:22 +0100 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp12.migadu.com with LMTPS id uJL4B77bN2J8IwEAauVa8A (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 02:58:22 +0100 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A47FF4494F for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 02:58:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1]:50686 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nW7JM-0005JN-RK for larch@yhetil.org; Sun, 20 Mar 2022 21:58:20 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:59490) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nW7Ix-0005JF-SE for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Mar 2022 21:57:56 -0400 Received: from [2607:f8b0:4864:20::102c] (port=51049 helo=mail-pj1-x102c.google.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nW7Iv-0007dy-I3 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Mar 2022 21:57:55 -0400 Received: by mail-pj1-x102c.google.com with SMTP id m22so11919333pja.0 for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2022 18:57:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:references:user-agent:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version; bh=yL/f2NzOYHbbdGfceukZkYzknyDpKvAUICCnAJ8qrxM=; b=VXy7NMu91FqDd2NTCafJKmB6WpJ/wTtOFVnPrTpfJ08YMiJ8iBEsSFMPAwNNIrULOw HkZwsJOKZKtq3mnGzRInQ8Ch52s1nZfl5sMpgZj2/9RScjgT4MDPKdoPFwl0lLJSBx7D bZpN/daxj/NtyV2vHzc6/8zxRTe79+6FmJ9dHbqac3KI4TCT0Q+dj5CkldFUtZP/pgpR 84KbGV7CQ8qks30K/VRA9KEHS/UYhVos1kBt761LjC8mwcDIbs2CaxnHidqOogZ7Yyqo enGHoKOAX2+jn0eHGBZt3PHlFm8EqBAio6vAGfC2lf/GM87u5Qlc+fmLZxclsSAXXZyx oHFQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:references:user-agent :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version; bh=yL/f2NzOYHbbdGfceukZkYzknyDpKvAUICCnAJ8qrxM=; b=d19yLRdY8+N0NnqE8ntw+HpC7yqhK6SO8BQ7pw0N5D9X7Vu1MOsPPMGDPkwq5baQR0 q/Hm70GKCFi+rjvTOZgr4YVZQjU+phiIMyPnufA+xSAxdgSyYBglF/xilKuX5tnemzd8 XKB4f37xFkzldYfYX8vj4LCtwUZCIbFlwiH4EIdjG9cDKHhcpv4sJmz+tnJoG7K31gJk e7oJemPl10EHjvTZR63hh0EVBbBi9SRIy4e5IPjyoZPp5MiI8+IV6uimkyHUyg3sqovr VrppnUc5vYf9c38HIZxNsAs85dVR3H1VhVqM8E6AJG7nzlQc8MBfn1/MCq6/scVsvKSV /59w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531yv7Ay+zAb5kcMqXeyG9ZT2K1xXX+/ezaNHmaXKKfTNDdFTSBT WMiVmNPJj9ALm1bJSozpUo4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwxYfMyhqFFTa3+e5g5yCY9bM2RFpg0jQHrQjwCADRBsiShAq4eN4gL47/idH8mznpqk9zlUQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:cccf:b0:14e:eb44:40a1 with SMTP id z15-20020a170902cccf00b0014eeb4440a1mr10594013ple.111.1647827871269; Sun, 20 Mar 2022 18:57:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (61-245-128-160.3df580.per.nbn.aussiebb.net. [61.245.128.160]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id mw7-20020a17090b4d0700b001b8baf6b6f5sm14937872pjb.50.2022.03.20.18.57.50 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 20 Mar 2022 18:57:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Timothy To: John Kitchin Subject: Re: citations: org-cite vs org-ref 3.0 Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 09:39:13 +0800 References: <87wngosqvm.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> User-agent: mu4e 1.6.10; emacs 28.0.91 In-reply-to: Message-ID: <87r16wukx0.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" X-Host-Lookup-Failed: Reverse DNS lookup failed for 2607:f8b0:4864:20::102c (failed) Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::102c; envelope-from=tecosaur@gmail.com; helo=mail-pj1-x102c.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam_report: (-0.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, PDS_HP_HELO_NORDNS=0.659, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Vikas Rawal , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, Nicolas Goaziou Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-To: larch@yhetil.org X-Migadu-Country: US ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1647827902; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=yL/f2NzOYHbbdGfceukZkYzknyDpKvAUICCnAJ8qrxM=; b=Z8anHLdJIpyljSovYpy+wXGVjlHMgd/Fqn5NewXLPLSD6H9abSWyCyLIvsB5uyLIhWnQ/4 Xx6TbiNJxXhFoDv6wmsqg3EhdavP0V/n/sTeTpPBzJaNDrUc77i74e87XpizWbUP/CCUja KyTkW6oFyVFSfg3YM3LlxYeBULd+dVbR6XrtK4jEo5oek46iBFBTryKa49vskH97eIWUhk rJFvfqBWuawiFgTsbnj3vguQVLu/05ZOsEfBmBkeCRkW8Nco+bDxUjrl2F1/iLvWOFrDQw PMgI1n4dj/9ZE8ujM85rDBLRLIRU+d4qPEImJeKxjMuUuuPR0usJSv+4rQSfTw== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1647827902; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=XNJU2Trmmt78+xKC4RayWB2mMhsfR146QD64ecWXVOziov2mRbie5NuBBoy4wQlxlMWVoI abdsSQEQdQxkf+TKA1TnsvNZf8NPxk7S9XquCpl9XO7erlaafQx/4teLfb02H6KDvyvPvi ZYH3i7FCo+1RPY3yIoc4/DzH7nflXhIjf88ds7CMlTlWdWgn41FVIGct+UUR6gjahsZEmY bd62Cwwc7I1gsz2Zf7NS3E8MqEmdAGSlgplwRV5txWrEMxW8iTz9/2ww/eSFp25Fs2iGsk FWLMnjRFCTsZTDtq9vBa68EfhYQFF2rXvR3cKcjJABOACoTiaTv1ZrvM07A83w== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=VXy7NMu9; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=gmail.com (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" X-Migadu-Spam-Score: 7.08 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=VXy7NMu9; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=gmail.com (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" X-Migadu-Queue-Id: A47FF4494F X-Spam-Score: 7.08 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn1.migadu.com X-TUID: dV3j8Um6sQZA --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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. =E2=94=8C=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80 =E2=94=82 #+bibliography: references.bib =E2=94=82 #+cite_export: biblatex authortitle/authortitle-ibid =E2=94=82=20 =E2=94=82 [cite:@key] etc. =E2=94=82=20 =E2=94=82 #+print_bibliography: =E2=94=94=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80=E2=94=80 The limitation which I think is on your mind is that not all bib(la)tex com= mands are supported, and not in the =E2=80=9Cusual=E2=80=9D form. For instance, t= o get `pnotecite' one would use `[cite/locators:]'. However, to get a 1-to-1 name mapping, you ca= n just customise `org-cite-biblatex-styles'. For instance, `parencite' is not curr= ently 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=E2=80=99t provide but org-ref does. You can already use `.bib' files, and so frankly I cannot myself see the po= int in org-ref=E2=80=99s existence beyond bifurcating the community on this. At th= is point the only remaining motivation I see is old documents and current users, and for= this a migration tool seems more appropriate. I don=E2=80=99t mean to be overly critical, however this is my current hone= st assessment of the situation. =E2=80=93 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=E2=80=99t share citation commands, or style information. It is inevit= able > 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=E2=80=99= 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=E2=80=99t= 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=E2=80=99t 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 =E2=80=9Cwhat I do=E2=80=9D, that org is not LaTeX, and that oth= ers 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=E2= =80=99t > 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=E2=80=99t fully agree on some of th= ese > 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=E2=80=99t se= e 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=E2=80=99t want the dependenci= es 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 --=-=-=--