Re: citations: org-cite vs org-ref 3.0

[Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com>]

On 23/03/2022 21:39, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> 
> Finding and analyzing existing papers again raises the question of
> which ones; citation practices look VERY different in chemistry than
> in art history or sociology. It also raises the question of who will
> do this work, and whether it's the most efficient use of their time.
> And finally, your suggestion seems to assume we didn't put a lot of
> research and thought into the existing mappings.

I think that a working solution (Eric just have confirmed it) is a great 
result. I am aware that even in different areas of physics citation 
traditions vary. I am not trying to dispute that you invest a lot of 
efforts. I just consider as normal when some polishing is required after 
the initial release. Really exhaustive research is usually prohibitively 
expensive. I had a hope that it was clear from the beginning that I 
considered a missed style as a minor issue.

My point was that it should not be unconsciously ignored. Since the 
message was long enough, this particular complain may remain unnoticed. 
I can not say that I fully agree with your decision, but I respect it. I 
had no intention to upset you and I beg your pardon if it happened.

> Have you actually looked at the table of existing mappings? See table
> 1 here (which it seems we might want to add to the manual?):
> 
> https://blog.tecosaur.com/tmio/2021-07-31-citations.html#cite-syntax

I have seen this post and I have even checked the org-cite code that the 
example from John's message is not covered by the existing mapping.