Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.3FD2B8E4@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:41:49 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 x-vm-v5-data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil t nil][nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil "^From:" nil nil nil]) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.3FD2B8E4" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 x-vm-vheader: ("From:" "Sender:" "Resent-From" "To:" "Apparently-To:" "Cc:" "Subject:" "Date:" "Resent-Date:") nil x-vm-bookmark: 1 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Citations and reference-lists Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1991 13:16:14 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: To: Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 310 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.3FD2B8E4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Here are a few comments on Nico's comments (5th March) about my paper on citations and reference-lists. >> 2. The paper on reference lists concentrates too much on layout and = not >> enough on structure. For a, in my humble opinion, much more valuable >> discussion of LaTeX 3.0, reference lists and BibTeX I'd like to = refer to the >> talk Frank Mittelbach gave at the Cork conference last year. Frank has sent me a copy of "BibTeX reconsidered", by Reinhard = Wonneberger and himself. I think that this is the written version of the talk that he gave at Cork. There seems to be a lot of common ground between my = paper and "BibTeX reconsidered", although the former is looking at it from the = LaTeX point-of-view while the latter is looking at it from the BibTeX = point-of-view. [Both my paper and "BibTeX reconsidered" would like support for multiple bibliographies, the short title/form scheme (often in footnotes) and commented bibliographies.] I'd like "document support" (as Reinhard/Frank put it) for = reference-by-number, author-date and short-form citation schemes. My paper suggested one = possible user interface through which this support could be provided. Of course, other interfaces could be defined that would do the job. I think that = the main thing is to provide satisfactory support for the 3 schemes. >> I'm totally opposed to the idea of having different coding schemes = for >> different systems of citation. In my opinion, this goes completely = against >> the basic idea behind LaTeX and SGML, namely separation of form and = contents. >> Consider the amount of re-coding when switching from the number = system to the >> name-year system! There are differences between the schemes that may be so significant = that they could/should be regarded as "different in form". * For instance, ISO 690 gives the example The notion of an invisible college has been explored in the sciences (24). Its absence among historians is noted by Steig (13, p. 556). It may be as Burchard (8) points out ... which, if converted to author-date, would be The notion of an invisible college has been explored in the sciences (Crane, 1972). Its absence among historians is noted = by Steig (1981, p. 556). It may be as Burchard (1965) points out = ... where the substitution has to take account of whether the author's = name does or does not occur naturally in the sentence. I.e. the form of citation depends on what else is in the sentence, and conversion cannot easily be automated. Similarly, I'd be surprised if one can guarantee to be able to change from other schemes to the short-form scheme without some re-writing. * Reference-by-number involves keeping track of one thing (the = number), author-date involves keeping track of two (surname and date), = short-form involves keeping track of at least two things (form for first = citation, form for subsequent citations, perhaps also the full form as the = default form for first citation). If the schemes are different in form (i.e. involve different logical structures), it may be legitimate to consider having different coding schemes, while still aiming at separation of form from content (e.g. whether reference-by-number uses superscripts or brackets). However, if someone has sufficient insight to be able to propose a = single user interface that can cater for all three schemes (plus possible = "additional references") within one set of commands/environments, I agree that it would be very nice. My own attempts to define a single interface that would cater for all three schemes have ended up being = unsatisfactory. Here's how they end up unsatisfactory. ------------ For the purpose of this account I'll use \refentry to mean the successor to \bibitem. Presumably \refentry would have to have 2 or 3 arguments = besides the cite-key (rather than \bibitem's one extra argument) so that the = arguments could be used for: - nothing, in the reference-by-number scheme (since LaTeX would supply the numbers) - author and date, in the author-date scheme - first-citation-form and subsequent-citation-form, for the short-form scheme. Thus, for reference-by-number, the user (or BibTeX) would supply \refentry{cite-key}{}{} ... but for author-date they would supply \refentry{cite-key}{author}{date} ... while for short form they would supply \refentry{cite-key}{fairly-full-form}{short-form} ... [We're already in trouble. How do we deal with what appears to be the = tendency in short form for the "full reference" to be the default "fairly full = form"? Do we go for \refentry{cite-key}[fairly-full-form]{short-form}{full = reference}, and if so what are the implications for the other 2 schemes?] Or should one go for \refentry{cite-key}{author}{date}{fairly-full-form}{short-form} ... so as to give LaTeX all the information it needs to allow completely automatic switching between citation schemes, separating form from = content but placing a heavy burden on the user (who would have to provide at least dummy information for both author-date and short-form schemes, even if they are only going to use reference-by-number)? For citation commands one might have \cite and \shortcite (following precedents in the archives) [but see section 6.5 of my paper, about = citation of a specific devision]. By aiming at author-date, one might be able to get a .tex file that also worked for reference-by-number. For example, if \cite and \shortcite both gave a number when a .sty file implemented reference-by-number, while \cite gave (author, date) and \shortcite gave (date) when a .sty file implemented author-date, the following input might work for both schemes: The notion of an invisible college has been explored in the sciences \cite{crane-72}. Its absence among historians is noted by Steig \shortcite{steig-81[p. 556]}. It may be as Burchard \shortcite{burchard-65} points out ... I don't think that the reverse would work, i.e. if you think in terms of reference-by-number while writing, you'll do things like Steig \cite{steig-81[p. 556]}. It may be as Burchard which, if converted automatically to author-date, would give Steig (Steig, 1981; p. 556). It may be as Burchard which gives two occurences of Steig, which isn't right. For short-form, you might interpret \cite as meaning "the form of = citation used at first citation" and \shortcite as meaning "the form to be used subsequently". But if you do this, you'll put your \shortcites in places that are different from the places you'd put them for author-date For example, you might have (using an ISO 690 example again) ... Steig \cite{steig-81}. It may be as Burchard \cite{burchard-65} points out ... Steig \shortcite{steig-81} has further noted ... for the MLA or ... Steig\footnote{\cite{steig-81}} ... = Steig\footnote{\shortcite{steig-81}} for most other publications that use short-form. [This assumes that the = first of these citations of Steig above is actually the first citation of = Steig in the whole document (or chapter).] But this would not give you the = right input file for author-date, for which you would want ... Steig \shortcite{steig-81}. It may be as Burchard Again, you might be able to convert automatically TO = reference-by-number, but it seems unlikely that you could convert automatically FROM reference-by-number. The problem might disappear if LaTeX itself could = work out which citations are "first citations". Then someone can put \cites = and \shortcites in the places required for author-date but choose a .sty = file that gives short-form; the .sty file would ignore the distinction = between \cite and \shortcite and would use the fairly-full-form for "first = citation" and the short-form for subsequent citations. But can LaTeX work out = which citations are "first citations"? ------------ Although one can try (as above) to imagine a single set of commands/environments that would support all three schemes, it seems to lead to problems, and I worry that, in making things right for one = scheme, they'll be made wrong for another. So I gave up on the idea of a single set of commands, which was why my paper went for the idea of separate commands/environments tailored to the 3 specific citation schemes. But, if someone has more success than I did in imagining how a single = set of commands/environments could be simultaneously compatible with all three = schemes, I'd be interested to see their proposals. Or should one be less ambitions, perhaps aiming to satisfy people who want reference-by-number and author-date, and not bothering about people who want short-form? Things like \refentry{cite-key}{author}{date}, \cite and \shortcite might work for both reference-by-number and = author-date. (People who want reference-by-number would have to supply author and = date information that they might regard as redundant, unless they go \refentry{cite-key}{}{} or the syntax is something like \refentry{cite-key}[author][date].) >> To David's review I'd like to add that \bibitem's have no = sub-division, at >> least not one that is indicated by explicit control sequences = (`tags'). >> Instead, the tagging of \bibitem's is done _outside_ LaTeX, which = has always >> struck me as odd. In theory, it would be nice if the \bibitem's did have subdivisions. = There might be subdivisions for the do-it-yourself-er that were analogous to the fields used by the BibTeX-er. In practice, to sub-divide the \bibitems would involve deciding what the subdivisions should be, which leads one into questions that cause = difficulty in BibTeX (e.g., "Should it be address or place-of-publication?", "Is it really worth having booklet separate?", "Is it really worth having phdthesis separate from mastersthesis?", "Does volume mean number-in-series or subdivision-of-book?"). It may not be easy to answer these questions. I don't think that it is worth delaying LaTeX 3.0 while answers are sought. [One could always return to the question for LaTeX 4.0, if there was one!] David Rhead (JANET: d.rhead@uk.ac.nottingham.ccc.vme) --- End of forwarded message ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.3FD2B8E4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Citations and reference-lists

Here are a few comments on Nico's comments (5th March) = about my paper on
citations and reference-lists.


>>  2. The paper on reference lists = concentrates too much on layout and not
>>  enough on structure. For a, in my = humble opinion, much more valuable
>>  discussion of LaTeX 3.0, reference = lists and BibTeX I'd like to refer to the
>>  talk Frank Mittelbach gave at the Cork = conference last year.

Frank has sent me a copy of "BibTeX = reconsidered", by Reinhard Wonneberger
and himself.  I think that this is the written = version of the talk that
he gave at Cork.  There seems to be a lot of = common ground between my paper
and "BibTeX reconsidered", although the = former is looking at it from the LaTeX
point-of-view while the latter is looking at it from = the BibTeX point-of-view.
[Both my paper and "BibTeX reconsidered" = would like support for multiple
bibliographies, the short title/form scheme (often in = footnotes) and
commented bibliographies.]

I'd like "document support" (as = Reinhard/Frank put it) for reference-by-number,
author-date and short-form citation schemes.  My = paper suggested one possible
user interface through which this support could be = provided.  Of course,
other interfaces could be defined that would do the = job.  I think that the
main thing is to provide satisfactory support for the = 3 schemes.


>>  I'm totally opposed to the idea of = having different coding schemes for
>>  different systems of citation. In my = opinion, this goes completely against
>>  the basic idea behind LaTeX and SGML, = namely separation of form and contents.
>>  Consider the amount of re-coding when = switching from the number system to the
>>  name-year system!

There are differences between the schemes that may be = so significant that
they could/should be regarded as "different in = form".
*   For instance, ISO 690 gives the = example
        The notion = of an invisible college has been explored in the
        sciences = (24).  Its absence among historians is noted by
        Steig (13, = p. 556).  It may be as Burchard (8) points out ...
    which, if converted to = author-date, would be
        The notion = of an invisible college has been explored in the
        sciences = (Crane, 1972).  Its absence among historians is noted by
        Steig = (1981, p. 556).  It may be as Burchard (1965) points out ...
    where the substitution has to take = account of whether the author's name
    does or does not occur naturally = in the sentence.  I.e. the form of
    citation depends on what else is = in the sentence, and conversion
    cannot easily be automated.  = Similarly, I'd be surprised if one can
    guarantee to be able to change = from other schemes to the
    short-form scheme without some = re-writing.
*   Reference-by-number involves keeping = track of one thing (the number),
    author-date involves keeping track = of two (surname and date), short-form
    involves keeping track of at least = two things (form for first citation,
    form for subsequent citations, = perhaps also the full form as the default
    form for first citation).
If the schemes are different in form (i.e. involve = different logical
structures), it may be legitimate to consider having = different coding
schemes, while still aiming at separation of form = from content (e.g.
whether reference-by-number uses superscripts or = brackets).

However, if someone has sufficient insight to be able = to propose a single user
interface that can cater for all three schemes (plus = possible "additional
references") within one set of = commands/environments, I agree that it
would be very nice.  My own attempts to define a = single interface
that would cater for all three schemes have ended up = being unsatisfactory.
Here's how they end up unsatisfactory.
          &nbs= p;            = ;       ------------
For the purpose of this account I'll use \refentry to = mean the successor
to \bibitem.  Presumably \refentry would have to = have 2 or 3 arguments besides
the cite-key (rather than \bibitem's one extra = argument) so that the arguments
could be used for:
- nothing, in the reference-by-number scheme (since = LaTeX would supply
  the numbers)
- author and date, in the author-date scheme
- first-citation-form and subsequent-citation-form, = for the short-form
  scheme.
Thus, for reference-by-number, the user (or BibTeX) = would supply
\refentry{cite-key}{}{} ...
but for author-date they would supply
\refentry{cite-key}{author}{date} ...
while for short form they would supply
\refentry{cite-key}{fairly-full-form}{short-form} = ...
[We're already in trouble.  How do we deal with = what appears to be the tendency
in short form for the "full reference" to = be the default "fairly full form"?
Do we go for = \refentry{cite-key}[fairly-full-form]{short-form}{full = reference},
and if so what are the implications for the other 2 = schemes?]
Or should one go for
\refentry{cite-key}{author}{date}{fairly-full-form}{short-form} = ...
so as to give LaTeX all the information it needs to = allow completely
automatic switching between citation schemes, = separating form from content
but placing a heavy burden on the user (who would = have to provide
at least dummy information for both author-date and = short-form
schemes, even if they are only going to use = reference-by-number)?

For citation commands one might have \cite and = \shortcite (following
precedents in the archives) [but see section 6.5 of = my paper, about citation
of a specific devision].  By aiming at = author-date, one might be able to
get a .tex file that also worked for = reference-by-number.  For example,
if \cite and \shortcite both gave a number when a = .sty file implemented
reference-by-number, while \cite gave (author, date) = and \shortcite
gave (date) when a .sty file implemented author-date, = the following
input might work for both schemes:
    The notion of an invisible college = has been explored in the
    sciences \cite{crane-72}.  = Its absence among historians is noted by
    Steig \shortcite{steig-81[p. = 556]}.  It may be as Burchard
    \shortcite{burchard-65} points out = ...
I don't think that the reverse would work, i.e. if = you think in terms
of reference-by-number while writing, you'll do = things like
    Steig \cite{steig-81[p. = 556]}.  It may be as Burchard
which, if converted automatically to author-date, = would give
    Steig (Steig, 1981; p. 556).  = It may be as Burchard
which gives two occurences of Steig, which isn't = right.
For short-form, you might interpret \cite as meaning = "the form of citation
used at first citation" and \shortcite as = meaning "the form to be used
subsequently".  But if you do this, you'll = put your \shortcites in
places that are different from the places you'd put = them for author-date
For example, you might have (using an ISO 690 example = again)
    ... Steig \cite{steig-81}.  = It may be as Burchard
    \cite{burchard-65} points out ... = Steig \shortcite{steig-81}
    has further noted ...
for the MLA or
    ... = Steig\footnote{\cite{steig-81}} ... = Steig\footnote{\shortcite{steig-81}}
for most other publications that use = short-form.  [This assumes that the first
of these citations of Steig above is actually the = first citation of Steig
in the whole document (or chapter).]  But this = would not give you the right
input file for author-date, for which you would = want
    ... Steig = \shortcite{steig-81}.  It may be as Burchard
Again, you might be able to convert automatically TO = reference-by-number,
but it seems unlikely that you could convert = automatically FROM
reference-by-number.  The problem might = disappear if LaTeX itself could work
out which citations are "first = citations".  Then someone can put \cites and
\shortcites in the places required for author-date = but choose a .sty file
that gives short-form; the .sty file would ignore the = distinction between
\cite and \shortcite and would use the = fairly-full-form for "first citation"
and the short-form for subsequent citations.  = But can LaTeX work out which
citations are "first citations"?
          &nbs= p;            = ;       ------------
Although one can try (as above) to imagine a single = set of
commands/environments that would support all three = schemes, it seems to
lead to problems, and I worry that, in making things = right for one scheme,
they'll be made wrong for another.  So I gave up = on the idea of a single
set of commands, which was why my paper went for the = idea of separate
commands/environments tailored to the 3 specific = citation schemes.
But, if someone has more success than I did in = imagining how a single set of
commands/environments could be simultaneously = compatible with all three schemes,
I'd be interested to see their proposals.

Or should one be less ambitions, perhaps aiming to = satisfy people who
want reference-by-number and author-date, and not = bothering about people
who want short-form?  Things like = \refentry{cite-key}{author}{date},
\cite and \shortcite might work for both = reference-by-number and author-date.
(People who want reference-by-number would have to = supply author and date
information that they might regard as redundant, = unless they go
\refentry{cite-key}{}{} or the syntax is something = like
\refentry{cite-key}[author][date].)


>>  To David's review I'd like to add that = \bibitem's have no sub-division, at
>>  least not one that is indicated by = explicit control sequences (`tags').
>>  Instead, the tagging of \bibitem's is = done _outside_ LaTeX, which has always
>>  struck me as odd.

In theory, it would be nice if the \bibitem's did have = subdivisions.  There
might be subdivisions for the do-it-yourself-er that = were analogous to
the fields used by the BibTeX-er.

In practice, to sub-divide the \bibitems would involve = deciding what the
subdivisions should be, which leads one into = questions that cause difficulty
in BibTeX (e.g., "Should it be address or = place-of-publication?",
"Is it really worth having booklet = separate?", "Is it really worth
having phdthesis separate from mastersthesis?", = "Does volume mean
number-in-series or = subdivision-of-book?").  It may not be easy to
answer these questions.  I don't think that it = is worth delaying
LaTeX 3.0 while answers are sought.  [One could = always return to the
question for LaTeX 4.0, if there was one!]


David Rhead
(JANET: d.rhead@uk.ac.nottingham.ccc.vme)
--- End of forwarded message



------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.3FD2B8E4--