Re: [NTG-context] YABQ - yet another bib question
Thomas A. Schmitz wrote: Hi all, it was quite heartwarming to see how many of us rallied for better bibliographical support when Wolfgang asked what we missed most in ConTeXt... And it's wonderful to see that a new structure for the entire bibliographical stuff is on its way. Hans's xml-based approach will make things much easier than the obsolete bibtex stuff, I'm sure. In the meantime, I'm still struggling with our old bib stuff and have one question. I would like to have two different reference mechanisms for the cite commands and within the publication list. For normal cite commands, I would like authornum Author [1], whereas in the publicationlist itself only the num [1]. AFAICS, \setuppublications[refcommand=authornum] will influence both types. Is there a setup option for this, or is a hack needed? I expect adding a \setuppublications[refcommand=num] just before the \completepublications will work. Best wishes, Taco ___ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] YABQ - yet another bib question
On Feb 11, 2010, at 3:35 PM, Taco Hoekwater wrote: Is there a setup option for this, or is a hack needed? I expect adding a \setuppublications[refcommand=num] just before the \completepublications will work. Best wishes, Taco And right you are! I should've thought of that myself! Thanks Taco! Thomas ___ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] YABQ (yet another bib question...)
Thomas A. Schmitz wrote:
I just ran into the same question. When using a citation style that
doesn't quote the year (like refcommand=num), it seems more logical
to drop the maybeyear letter. It seems to work setting
\def\maybeyear{\gobbleoneargument}
I haven't seen any side effects yet, but maybe I'm missing something.
Would it be possible to make this behavior a global option/value?
The problem with redefining \maybeyear is that it affects all
citations equally: when you have three Knuth records with the
same year and two Tuftes with the same year in the database, then
if you use only one of Knuths but both Tuftes, you can no longer
see which one of the Tuftes you were citing.
I could add an interface setting, so that you would do not have to
resort to using \def, but it would be much better if I could fix
the problem internally. Needs some thinking, though
Taco
___
ntg-context mailing list
ntg-context@ntg.nl
http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
Re: [NTG-context] YABQ (yet another bib question...)
On Sep 15, 2006, at 9:57 AM, Taco Hoekwater wrote: The problem with redefining \maybeyear is that it affects all citations equally: when you have three Knuth records with the same year and two Tuftes with the same year in the database, then if you use only one of Knuths but both Tuftes, you can no longer see which one of the Tuftes you were citing. I could add an interface setting, so that you would do not have to resort to using \def, but it would be much better if I could fix the problem internally. Needs some thinking, though Taco Yes, I see the difficulty. I don't know enough about bibtex styles and habits in general, but I'm just wondering if \maybeyear should be used in a different way - in my discipline, I think it would. Consider this example: Hoekwater, First article, journalA, vol. 5 (2006) Hoekwater, Second article, journalB, vol. 10 (2006) IMHO, bibtex should now generate keys such as Hoek2006a and Hoek2006b or authoryear references like Hoekwater (2006a) and Hoekwater (2006b), but it should not (!) append the a and b to the years in the bibliographic list itself. But I may be wrong here - what do you and other users say? Should the (2006) in the example above come out as (2006a) and (2006b)? And as I was suggesting: if you use numered references, I think it would be best to just switch maybeyear off completely, so my suggestion would be to have a switch maybeyear = on/off for the \setuppublicationlist. Best Thomas ___ ntg-context mailing list ntg-context@ntg.nl http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
Re: [NTG-context] YABQ (yet another bib question...)
Thomas A. Schmitz wrote: IMHO, bibtex should now generate keys such as Hoek2006a and Hoek2006b or authoryear references like Hoekwater (2006a) and Hoekwater (2006b), but it should not (!) append the a and b to the years in the bibliographic list itself. Actually, sometimes it should, namely in authoryear styles with the list in database ordering as opposed to cite ordering. But I may be wrong here - what do you and other users say? Should the (2006) in the example above come out as (2006a) and (2006b)? And as I was suggesting: if you use numered references, I think it would be best to just switch maybeyear off completely, so my suggestion would be to have a switch maybeyear = on/off for the \setuppublicationlist. Sure, that is simple. Will upload in a few minutes Taco ___ ntg-context mailing list ntg-context@ntg.nl http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
Re: [NTG-context] YABQ (yet another bib question...)
On Sep 15, 2006, at 11:47 AM, Taco Hoekwater wrote: Thomas A. Schmitz wrote: IMHO, bibtex should now generate keys such as Hoek2006a and Hoek2006b or authoryear references like Hoekwater (2006a) and Hoekwater (2006b), but it should not (!) append the a and b to the years in the bibliographic list itself. Actually, sometimes it should, namely in authoryear styles with the list in database ordering as opposed to cite ordering. Oh dear, once you go into the gory details of bibliographies, there's no end to it... But I may be wrong here - what do you and other users say? Should the (2006) in the example above come out as (2006a) and (2006b)? And as I was suggesting: if you use numered references, I think it would be best to just switch maybeyear off completely, so my suggestion would be to have a switch maybeyear = on/off for the \setuppublicationlist. Sure, that is simple. Will upload in a few minutes Taco Thanks Taco, that's sweet. Maybe other users can chime in. I'm still thinking whether it would be useful to add an option that would append maybeyyear only to the reference key, not to the list... Such as a bibliographic style that would produce this sort of list: Hoekwater 2006a = Hoekwater, Article 1, JournalA 2 (2006) 20--30 Hoekwater 2006b = Hoekwater, Article 2, JournalB 2 (2006) 30--40 But disregard this if you think it's silly or if it's too difficult to implement. ___ ntg-context mailing list ntg-context@ntg.nl http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
Re: [NTG-context] YABQ (yet another bib question...)
IMHO, bibtex should now generate keys such as Hoek2006a and Hoek2006b or authoryear references like Hoekwater (2006a) and Hoekwater (2006b), but it should not (!) append the a and b to the years in the bibliographic list itself. But I may be wrong here - what do you and other users say? Should the (2006) in the example above come out as (2006a) and (2006b)? At first I was sure that (2006a) and (2006b) are the right answer for the list. Othewise how else could the user know which entry to look up when they see, say, Hoekwater (2006b) in the text? But I just figured out the answer to that question: Users count 'a', 'b', ... starting with the first 2006 entry. However, I still don't think it's a good idea to make them do that. Let's not ask users to do what computers do very well (counting)! And as I was suggesting: if you use numered references, I think it would be best to just switch maybeyear off completely, so my suggestion would be to have a switch maybeyear = on/off for the \setuppublicationlist. Let me know whether I'm understanding it correctly. If you have a numbered reference list, then the year can still end up with a letter tag, e.g. 1. Taco Hoekwater. JournalA. 2006a 2. Taco Hoekwater. JournalB. 2006b Ah, I hadn't thought of that problem. You're right, there shouldn't be a maybeyear in this case since the list number disambiguates the reference completely. -Sanjoy `Never underestimate the evil of which men of power are capable.' --Bertrand Russell, _War Crimes in Vietnam_, chapter 1. ___ ntg-context mailing list ntg-context@ntg.nl http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
Re: [NTG-context] YABQ (yet another bib question...)
On Sep 15, 2006, at 2:34 PM, Sanjoy Mahajan wrote: At first I was sure that (2006a) and (2006b) are the right answer for the list. Othewise how else could the user know which entry to look up when they see, say, Hoekwater (2006b) in the text? But I just figured out the answer to that question: Users count 'a', 'b', ... starting with the first 2006 entry. However, I still don't think it's a good idea to make them do that. Let's not ask users to do what computers do very well (counting)! Let me know whether I'm understanding it correctly. If you have a numbered reference list, then the year can still end up with a letter tag, e.g. 1. Taco Hoekwater. JournalA. 2006a 2. Taco Hoekwater. JournalB. 2006b Ah, I hadn't thought of that problem. You're right, there shouldn't be a maybeyear in this case since the list number disambiguates the reference completely. Sanjoy, yes, I agree completely: let the computer do the counting and bookkeeping! And you've hit the nail on the head: what I meant was, in cases where the form of the list makes the reference completely unambiguous (because it is numbered or because keys/authoryear tags are prefixed), adding another number in the bibliographic entry is superfluous and somewhat ugly. So question to Taco: maybe we need three options for maybeyear? 1. off [always] 2. on [always] 3. on for tags and authoryear etc., off for the date entry in the list itself. Am I making sense? Are we working you to the bones? ;-) Best Thomas ___ ntg-context mailing list ntg-context@ntg.nl http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
Re: [NTG-context] YABQ (yet another bib question...)
Thomas A. Schmitz wrote: So question to Taco: maybe we need three options for maybeyear? 1. off [always] This is the one that is missing, yes? Because the \setuppublicationlist[maybeyear=off] is actually option 3. 2. on [always] 3. on for tags and authoryear etc., off for the date entry in the list itself. ___ ntg-context mailing list ntg-context@ntg.nl http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
Re: [NTG-context] YABQ (yet another bib question...)
On Sep 10, 2006, at 3:30 PM, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
[Taco: The reference to Knuth below comes out as (Knuth, 1981c) even
though there are no other 1981 entries for Knuth cited in the text.
Is that hard to fix given ConTeXt's way of dealing with bibtex, in
that it just incorporates the entire database, in which there are
several 1981 entries from Knuth?]
Problematic. There is a small bit of influence possible: the `c' is
inside macro (\maybeyear) that could be redefined (nullified), but
that is a document-global solution, and it may not even work too well
at that. It's been a long time since I looked at this problem. It is
not totally unsolvable, but definately not simple either.
Taco,
I just ran into the same question. When using a citation style that
doesn't quote the year (like refcommand=num), it seems more logical
to drop the maybeyear letter. It seems to work setting
\def\maybeyear{\gobbleoneargument}
I haven't seen any side effects yet, but maybe I'm missing something.
Would it be possible to make this behavior a global option/value?
Best
Thomas
___
ntg-context mailing list
ntg-context@ntg.nl
http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
Re: [NTG-context] YABQ (yet another bib question...)
Sanjoy,
thanks for your rely. Of course you're quite right, this is the wau
to go, and it works. But my question was imprecise because I did not
mention what was causing the problem: I'm working with split
bibliographies and want to refer in chapter 2 to an item already
included in the biblio of chapter 2. If I just put a \cite command
somewhere, this item will be included a second time in the list of
chapter 2. So my question is: this item does already have a counter
attached to it. Is it possible to refer to this raw counter across
chapters? Like so:
Chapter 1
[1] main reference
Chapter 2
[2] another thing
[3] and yet another [reprinted in [1]]
without having [1] main reference repeated. This my very well be
impossible, I'm just wondering.
Thanks, and all best
Thomas
On Sep 9, 2006, at 12:40 AM, Sanjoy Mahajan wrote:
Is it possible to refer back to item [1] automatically, by sticking
the reprinted in in a note field in the database? I tried a
number of combinations of \crossref or so, but couldn't get this to
work.
I need to repeat my experiments, but I think it worked to use simply
\cite in the bibtex entry. Ah, here is one example. It uses
xampl.bib, which comes with old distributions of ConTeXt (e.g. teTeX
3.0's distribution).
[Taco: The reference to Knuth below comes out as (Knuth, 1981c) even
though there are no other 1981 entries for Knuth cited in the text.
Is that hard to fix given ConTeXt's way of dealing with bibtex, in
that it just incorporates the entire database, in which there are
several 1981 entries from Knuth?]
= cut here
\usemodule[bib]
\usemodule[bibltx]
\setupbibtex[database=xampl]
\starttext
Here is a citation to a book that contains a cross reference:
\cite[book-crossref]. The bibliography entry (next page) for it
should contain a bib reference to another item in the bibliography.
\completepublications
\stoptext
= cut here
Here are the relevant entries from xampl.bib, which indicates that
it's the crossref= line that you need (not \cite as I said above)v:
@BOOK{book-crossref,
crossref = whole-set,
title = Seminumerical Algorithms,
volume = 2,
series = The Art of Computer Programming,
edition = Second,
year = {\noopsort{1973c}}1981,
note = This is a cross-referencing BOOK entry,
}
@BOOK{whole-set,
author = Donald E. Knuth,
publisher = Addison-Wesley,
title = The Art of Computer Programming,
series = Four volumes,
year = {\noopsort{1973a}}{\switchargs{--90}{1968}},
note = Seven volumes planned (this is a cross-referenced set of
BOOKs),
}
-Sanjoy
`Never underestimate the evil of which men of power are capable.'
--Bertrand Russell, _War Crimes in Vietnam_, chapter 1.
___
ntg-context mailing list
ntg-context@ntg.nl
http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
___
ntg-context mailing list
ntg-context@ntg.nl
http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
Re: [NTG-context] YABQ (yet another bib question...)
Thomas A. Schmitz wrote:
Sanjoy,
thanks for your rely. Of course you're quite right, this is the wau
to go, and it works. But my question was imprecise because I did not
mention what was causing the problem: I'm working with split
bibliographies and want to refer in chapter 2 to an item already
included in the biblio of chapter 2. If I just put a \cite command
somewhere, this item will be included a second time in the list of
chapter 2. So my question is: this item does already have a counter
attached to it. Is it possible to refer to this raw counter across
chapters? Like so:
Chapter 1
[1] main reference
Chapter 2
[2] another thing
[3] and yet another [reprinted in [1]]
without having [1] main reference repeated. This my very well be
impossible, I'm just wondering.
You can try this:
\def\silentcite[#1]%
{\bgroup
\let\addthisref\gobbleoneargument
\cite[#1]%
\egroup}
(untested). If that does not work, it is not possible.
Taco
___
ntg-context mailing list
ntg-context@ntg.nl
http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
Re: [NTG-context] YABQ (yet another bib question...)
On Sep 11, 2006, at 7:11 PM, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
You can try this:
\def\silentcite[#1]%
{\bgroup
\let\addthisref\gobbleoneargument
\cite[#1]%
\egroup}
(untested). If that does not work, it is not possible.
Taco
Taco,
thanks for the suggestion. It doesn't work (still produces an entry
in the bibliography), but it's not a big deal, these are very special
cases, and I can edit the bbl manually in order to get them right.
On a related note: all lovers of the bib module (and I know there are
many of them out there) may be interested to know of two nice things.
I found them out while I was switching my bibliographies to the new
system. So if you use the one and only editor, emacs, you may want to
try this:
1. reftex works with context! It cannot automatically determine the
database it is supposed to use (I have to look into the customization
again to see whether it can be taught to do so), but you can tell it
explicitly about your .bib file, and then, all the usual keybindings
work, you get a nice buffer where you can choose your references etc.
There was a discussion a while ago on the mailing list, and my
impression was it didn't work, so I was thrilled to see it did!
2. I discovered another nice little app that works within emacs. It's
called ebib. It is not very good as an editor for bibtex databases,
but it has a great tab-completion feature for inserting references
into your files. I tweaked it a bit so it would insert the proper
\cite[] and \nocite[] commands for ConTeXt, and it is the fastest and
most convenient thing I've ever seen. Maybe I should say something
about on the wiki?
Anyway, Taco, thanks for your help, and all best
Thomas
___
ntg-context mailing list
ntg-context@ntg.nl
http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
Re: [NTG-context] YABQ (yet another bib question...)
Thomas, Is it possible to refer to this raw counter across chapters? Not sure -- it is beyond my ConTeXt bib module competence, but I hope one of the resident experts has an idea... -Sanjoy `Never underestimate the evil of which men of power are capable.' --Bertrand Russell, _War Crimes in Vietnam_, chapter 1. ___ ntg-context mailing list ntg-context@ntg.nl http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
Re: [NTG-context] YABQ (yet another bib question...)
Sanjoy Mahajan wrote: I need to repeat my experiments, but I think it worked to use simply \cite in the bibtex entry. Ah, here is one example. It uses xampl.bib, which comes with old distributions of ConTeXt (e.g. teTeX 3.0's distribution). Yeah, that's how I expected it to be done. [Taco: The reference to Knuth below comes out as (Knuth, 1981c) even though there are no other 1981 entries for Knuth cited in the text. Is that hard to fix given ConTeXt's way of dealing with bibtex, in that it just incorporates the entire database, in which there are several 1981 entries from Knuth?] Problematic. There is a small bit of influence possible: the `c' is inside macro (\maybeyear) that could be redefined (nullified), but that is a document-global solution, and it may not even work too well at that. It's been a long time since I looked at this problem. It is not totally unsolvable, but definately not simple either. Best, Taco ___ ntg-context mailing list ntg-context@ntg.nl http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
