Le Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 04:12:18PM +0100, Andreas Tille a écrit :
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:55:32PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Nevertheless, if there are good reasons to not store monolithic BibTeX
references and use another format or approach, I would be very interested to
hear them.
Charles Plessy wrote:
In the discussion that followed, we talked about where to store this
information, and in which format, since adding more content to the
debian/control file is not an easy thing (it ‘costs’ a lot because it goes to
pivotal files like the Packages.gz files on our mirrors).
Hi Morten,
On 4 November 2009 at 16:18, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
| Charles Plessy wrote:
|
| In the discussion that followed, we talked about where to store this
| information, and in which format, since adding more content to the
| debian/control file is not an easy thing (it ‘costs’ a lot
Le Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 10:47:24AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
It would be great to standardise our efforts.
[on distributing BibTeX references].
By the way, does any reader here knows what other distros are doing ?
--
Charles
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Dear all,
last year, Michael opened a discussion to have bibliographic information
displayed in package summaries:
http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20081007205357.ga1...@nighthawk.chemicalconnection.dyndns.org
In the discussion that followed, we talked about where to store this
information,
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:55:32PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Nevertheless, if there are good reasons to not store monolithic BibTeX
references and use another format or approach, I would be very interested to
hear them.
Having BibTeX in the YAML format is probably OK. My question on QA was
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
You replied to a message more than a week old, and missed an option
which came up last week, see below.
I was offline for two weeks with a small window in between where
I most probably missed something.
Option 5 doesn't delay implementation at
Hi all,
I have been thinking a bit further about the bibtex references, and wonder
about two questions:
- What kind of unique identifier will we give to them?
- Downloadable references often include the abstract, but the abstract is
copyrighted work most of the time. Should we better not
Am Montag, den 27.10.2008, 22:13 +0900 schrieb Charles Plessy:
I have been thinking a bit further about the bibtex references, and wonder
about two questions:
- What kind of unique identifier will we give to them?
I used the scheme First Author, Year, Colon, Software for quite some
time
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Chris Walker wrote:
If you were to put the software first - eg apbs:Baker2001, tab
completion of the reference would be easier as I'm more likely to
remember the name of the software than the name of the author.
I have no strong opinion about this - but considering that
Am Montag, den 27.10.2008, 15:41 + schrieb Chris Walker:
Manuel Prinz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I used the scheme First Author, Year, Colon, Software for quite some
time now. Example: Baker2001:apbs for APBS [0]. Until now, I did not
have any problems with that.
If you were to put
Hi Andreas,
You replied to a message more than a week old, and missed an option
which came up last week, see below.
On Sat, 2008-10-18 at 16:33 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008, Manuel Prinz wrote:
Sure. So, to summarize, we have the following options:
1. The
Le Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 09:31:44AM -0400, Adam C Powell IV a écrit :
5. The package maintainer includes reference file(s) where (s)he sees
fit, with an index pointing to them and indicating their format in
the .doc-base file.
By the way, I just tried this on the package seaview:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008, Manuel Prinz wrote:
Sure. So, to summarize, we have the following options:
1. The references are added to the long description
2. The references are added to Packages via a new X-* field
3. The references are added to debian/copyright
4. The references are
On Sat, 18 Oct 2008, Andreas Tille wrote:
would just want to note that your prefered choice is the option that
makes the implementation on the tasks page the hardest amongst all
the options. I do not see this as an unresolvable problem but it delays
the implementation the most.
... sorry for
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:40:26AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
- Prepare files named 'reference' of 'citation' in the source package.
Did you mean 'reference' *or* 'citation'? As I argued elsewhere, I
think both are quite different, and both files have their merit.
Also, what format are you
On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 15:17 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:40:26AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
- Prepare files named 'reference' of 'citation' in the source package.
Did you mean 'reference' *or* 'citation'? As I argued elsewhere, I
think both are quite different,
Am Donnerstag, den 16.10.2008, 17:41 +0200 schrieb Michael Banck:
The problem I have with doc-base is that it is underused and not very
accessible. At least that is my impression of it as somebody who
doesn't care a lot about it from a packager's POV. I probably should
care more, though.
I
On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 21:36 +0200, Manuel Prinz wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 16.10.2008, 17:41 +0200 schrieb Michael Banck:
The problem I have with doc-base is that it is underused and not very
accessible. At least that is my impression of it as somebody who
doesn't care a lot about it from a
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 04:41:45PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
My idea was actually to have the citations.bib and/or references.bib
in /usr/share/doc/package as you say, and have the .doc-base file
include something like:
Format: BibTeX
Files: /usr/share/doc/package/*.bib
Isn't this
On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 22:52 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 04:41:45PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
My idea was actually to have the citations.bib and/or references.bib
in /usr/share/doc/package as you say, and have the .doc-base file
include something like:
Le Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:06:59AM -0400, Adam C Powell IV a écrit :
I figured it would point to one or more separate .bib files instead of
having the entry inside the doc-base file. It seems like it has the
best of both worlds: use current files and infrastructure, but allow
expansion to a
On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 14:20 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 08:19:25AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
The format of /usr/doc/package/references could be a popular one, for
instance BibTeX, if it allows cross references to other systems like
DOI, PubMed, ...)
I would
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 09:27 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 09:47:40AM -0400, Adam C Powell IV a écrit :
why not just adapt the existing doc-base format, adding a new BibTeX
files field? The description of which citation to use when (canonical
article(s) for
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 01:16:37PM +0200, Manuel Prinz wrote:
Am Samstag, den 11.10.2008, 22:28 +0900 schrieb Charles Plessy:
It seems that if we go the Debhelper way, we could make dh_references
not install anything if DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains a 'nodoc' flag.
Yes, this would be great
Am Samstag, den 11.10.2008, 15:40 +0100 schrieb Chris Walker:
I do like the approach of having a simple plain text file - while not
machine readable does make it clear the appropriate citation - (and in
this case the request that modified by author, institution, location,
year be added if
Am Samstag, den 11.10.2008, 10:35 -0500 schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel:
On 11 October 2008 at 15:40, Chris Walker wrote:
| I do like the approach of having a simple plain text file - while not
| machine readable does make it clear the appropriate citation - (and in
FWIW that is was R does. [...]
Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems that if we go the Debhelper way, we could make dh_references
not install anything if DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains a 'nodoc' flag. When
a large majority of the scientific packages would contain
debian/references, we could enhance dh_references
Le Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 04:16:21PM +0200, Michael Banck a écrit :
This is only the case if you add a XB-* field, which end up in the
binary package. XS-* fields end up in the .dsc of the source package,
and X-* field do not end up in either.
If that might be too hard to parse for
Manuel Prinz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sure. So, to summarize, we have the following options:
1. The references are added to the long description
2. The references are added to Packages via a new X-* field
3. The references are added to debian/copyright
4. The
On 11 October 2008 at 15:40, Chris Walker wrote:
| I do like the approach of having a simple plain text file - while not
| machine readable does make it clear the appropriate citation - (and in
FWIW that is was R does. For the subset of CRAN package I maintain, here is
the subset having such a
Hello,
Charles Plessy wrote:
I have no strong opinion where to put the bibliographic information, and
propose to discuss the different possibilities on debian-devel once we
have brainstormed enough.
For the format, although I won't stop volunteers to write conversion
scripts, I would
On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 23:55 +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081007 22:53]:
Also, having this would sense a clear signal to upstream authors that we
consider proper citing important and that enforcing citations in
copyright licensing is not the best thing to
* Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081008 00:28]:
Certainly, the citation mannors might be different in the various fields
of science, but at least in some fields, if you use a software package
to create scientific data you publish,
The important part here is what means use a software package
* Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081008 16:28]:
[...], but when authors ask to be cited, it is not
for vanity but for professional survival.
Sorry if that sounds harsh: But when people fake their results, they
sometimes do not do so for vanity but for survival, too.
Luckily, whith the
Le Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 08:19:25AM +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit :
Regarding your first item we might think about a debian/references
file with a defined structure and write a dh_installreferences script
to move this information to a defined place.
I would strongly vote for RFC822 format (as
Hi!
I like the idea. It makes software look more seriouse. Could happen that your
software gets citations on sites like citeseerx.ist.psu.edu if used
consequently :-)
Nik
Am Dienstag, 7. Oktober 2008 schrieb Michael Banck:
Hi,
One thing I'd like to have added to the nice package
Michael Banck wrote:
One thing I'd like to have added to the nice package overviews at
http://cdd.alioth.debian.org/science/tasks/chemistry.html etc. is a
canonical reference which should be given in scientific papers using
that package.
I agree. Many placed respective indications in the
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 11:55:34PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081007 22:53]:
Also, having this would sense a clear signal to upstream authors that we
consider proper citing important and that enforcing citations in
copyright licensing is not the best
Hi Michael,
I fully support the idea of providing a proper reference to the software
we distribute. In Debian-Med, I put one in the packages's description,
but I am not completely satisfied with this because:
- In some case, more than one would be necessary, and it would overload
the
There might be things where software can actually be used as academical
contribution to some paper, but all examples I've yet seen were just
ridicilously broad.
FWIW, it's not uncommon in my field (discrete mathematics). In particular,
there are proofs that rely on very large but finite case
Most of my peer reviewed published research papers involve the software in the
complearn package. I (and some others) do wind up citing it fairly often FWIW.
Best regards,
Rudi
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Ben Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There might be things where software can
42 matches
Mail list logo
