Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python

[Jacqueline Kazil]

I wanted to send an update.
At the NumFocus Summit, I found out about...
This: https://www.force11.org/group/software-citation-working-group
& this: https://github.com/adrn/CitationPEP

I am going to work on a citation approach based off of those two sources
and come back with a more developed proposal.

-Jackie

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 1:12 PM MRAB  wrote:

> On 2018-09-17 05:05, Jeremy Hylton wrote:
> >
> > I wanted to start with an easy answer that is surely unsatisfying:
> >
> http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2015/01/how-to-cite-software-in-apa-style.html
> >
> > APA style is pretty popular, and it says that standard software doesn't
> > need to be specified. Standard software includes "Microsoft Word, Java,
> > and Adobe Photoshop." So I'd say Python fits well in that category, and
> > doesn't need to be cited.
> >
> > I said you wouldn't be satisfied...
> >
> It goes on to say """Note: We don’t keep a comprehensive list of what
> programs are “standard.” You make the call.""".
>
> [snip]
> ___
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/jackiekazil%40gmail.com
>


-- 
Jacqueline Kazil | @jackiekazil
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python

[MRAB]

On 2018-09-17 05:05, Jeremy Hylton wrote:


I wanted to start with an easy answer that is surely unsatisfying:
http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2015/01/how-to-cite-software-in-apa-style.html

APA style is pretty popular, and it says that standard software doesn't 
need to be specified. Standard software includes "Microsoft Word, Java, 
and Adobe Photoshop." So I'd say Python fits well in that category, and 
doesn't need to be cited.


I said you wouldn't be satisfied...

It goes on to say """Note: We don’t keep a comprehensive list of what 
programs are “standard.” You make the call.""".


[snip]
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Jacqueline Kazil writes:

 > I thought I could take two to three concrete formats and user test
 > there and report on how community members who would be using the
 > citation feel.

+1

___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python

[Jeremy Hylton]

I wanted to start with an easy answer that is surely unsatisfying:
http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2015/01/how-to-cite-software-in-apa-style.html

APA style is pretty popular, and it says that standard software doesn't
need to be specified. Standard software includes "Microsoft Word, Java, and
Adobe Photoshop." So I'd say Python fits well in that category, and doesn't
need to be cited.

I said you wouldn't be satisfied...

On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 11:02 AM Jacqueline Kazil 
wrote:

> I just got caught up on the thread. This is a really great discussion.
> Thank you for all the contributions.
>
> Before we get into the details, let's go back to the main use case we are
> trying to solve.
> *As a user, I am writing an academic paper and I need to cite Python. *
>

The goal here is ambiguous. Python means many things--a language described
by the language specification, the source code of a particular
implementation of the language (Python often refers to C Python), a
particular binary release of the implementation of the language (Python
1.5.2 for Windows). Which one is relevant in the context of the paper? If
you're talking about a bug in timsort in a particular version of C Python,
then you probably want to cite that specific version of the implementation.

I suspect the most common goal for a citation is just to describe the
language "in general" where 1.5.2 or 3.7.0 and Jython or CPython are all
details that don't matter. In that case I'd cite the language
specification. We're talking about putting a citation in a paper (a written
source) and the written language specification captures what we think of as
essential for the language. If you want to cite Turing's proof of the
undecidability of the halting problem, you'd cite the paper where he wrote
it down (in Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society). If you want to
cite a programming language in the abstract, cite the specification that
describes it.

I think style guides are relevant here. They give guidance on how to cite
an item based on its category. For example, the MLA style guide describes
how to cite a digital file, a physical object, and many other things. My
favorite example under "physical object" is "Physical objects found
online." (Think about it :-).

There's some discussion of how to cite source code here:
http://integrity.mit.edu/handbook/writing-code. Notably this is talking
about citing source code in the context of other source code, and it mostly
recommends using URLs. If you wanted to cite a particular piece of source
code in an written article, you'd probably follow one of the approaches for
citing online resources. Try to identify who / when / what / where. For
example MLA style for a blog post would be : Editor, screen name, author,
or compiler name (if available). “Posting Title.” Name of Site, Version
number (if available), Name of institution/organization affiliated with the
site (sponsor or publisher), URL. Date of access. You could cite a
particular source file this way or a particular source release.

The date usually refers to the original publication date. I think that was
with the 1.0 release, although I'm not sure. I'd probably pick that date,
but someone can correct me if there's an earlier date. It would suggest
somehow that current Python and the original Python were mostly the same
thing, which is an idea I like.

van Rossum, Guido (1994). "The Python Language Reference". Python Software
Foundation, https://docs.python.org/reference/index.html. Retrieved 16
September 2018.

I'd say that's all settled. If anyone asks you, "How can you be sure that
settles it?" You can answer, "Some guy said it on a mailing list." And then
you can site the message:

Jeremy Hylton. "[Python-Dev] Official citation for Python." Sep. 17, 2018.
python-dev, https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev. Accessed
18 September 2018.

Jeremy


> Let's throw reproducibility out the window for now (<--- something I never
> thought I would say), because that should be captured in the code, not in
> the citations.
>
> So, if we don't need the specific version of Python, then maybe creating
> one citation is all we need.
> And that gives it some good Google juice as well.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> (Once we nail down one or many, I think we can then move into the details
> of the content of the citation.)
>
> -Jackie
>
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:47 AM Wes Turner  wrote:
>
>> There was a thread about adding __cite__ to things and a tool to collect
>> those citations awhile back.
>>
>> "[Python-ideas] Add a __cite__ method for scientific packages"
>> http://markmail.org/thread/rekmbmh64qxwcind
>>
>> Which CPython source file should contain this __cite__ value?
>>
>> ... On a related note, you should ask the list admin to append a URL to
>> each mailing list message whenever this list is upgraded to mm3; so that
>> you can all be appropriately cited.
>>
>> On Thursday, September 13, 2018, Wes Turner  wrote:
>>
>>> Do you guys think we should all 

Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python

[Paul Ganssle]

I think the "why" in this case should be a bit deeper than that, because
until recently, it's been somewhat unusual to cite the /tools you use/
to create a paper.

I see three major reasons why people cite software packages, and the
form of the citation would have different requirements for each one:

1. *Academic credit / Academic use metrics*

The weird way that academia has evolved, academics are largely judged by
their publications and how influential those publications are. A lot of
the people who work on statistical and scientific python libraries are
doing excellent and incredibly influential work, but that's largely
invisible to the metrics used by funding and tenure committees, so
there's been an effort do things like getting DOIs for libraries or
publishing articles in journals like the journal of open source
software: https://joss.theoj.org

Then you cite the libraries if you use them, and the people who
contribute to the work can say, "Look I'm a regular contributor to this
core library that is cited in 90% of papers". This seems less important
to CPython, where the majority of core contributors (as far as I can
tell) are not academics and have little use for high h-index papers.
That said, even if no one involved cares about the academic credit, if
every paper that used Python cited the language, it probably /would/
provide useful metrics to the PSF and others interested in this.

If all you want is a formal way to say "I used Python for this" as a
citation so that it can be tracked, then a single DOI for the entire
language should be sufficient.

2. *As a primary source or example for some claims
*

If you are writing an article about language design and you are
referencing how Python handles async or scoping or unicode or something,
you want to make it easy for your readers to see the context of your
statement, to verify that it's true and to get more details than you
might want to include as part of what may be a tangential mention in
your paper. I have a sense that this is closer to the original reason
people cited things in papers and books before citations became a metric
for measuring influence - and subsequently a way to give credit for the
source of ideas.

If this is why you are citing Python, you should probably be citing a
specific sub-section of the language reference and/or documentation, and
that citation should probably be versioned, since new features are added
in every minor version, and the way some of these things are handled may
change over time. In this case, a separate DOI for each minor version
that points to the documentation as built by a specific commit or git
tag or whatever would probably be ideal.

3. *To aid reproducibility*

It won't go all the way towards reproducing your research, but given
that Python is a living language that is always changing - both in
implementation and the spec itself - to the extent that you have a
"methods" section, it should probably include things like operating
system version, CPython version and the versions of all libraries you
used so that if someone is failing to replicate your results, they know
how to build an environment where it /should work/.

If you want to include this information in the form of a citation, then
I would think that you would not want to be both more granular - citing
the specific interpreter you used (CPython, Jython, Pypy), the full
version (3.6.6 rather than 3.6) and possibly even other factors like
operating system, etc, and /less/ granular in that you don't need to
cite a specific subset of the interpreter (e.g. async), but just the
interpreter as a whole.

--

My thoughts on the matter are that I think the CPython core dev team
probably cares a lot less about #1 than, say, the R dev team, which is
one reason why there's no clear way to cite "CPython" as a whole.

I think that #3 is a very laudable goal, but probably should be in some
sort of "methods" section of the document being prepared rather than
overloading citations for it, though having a standardized way to
describe your Python setup (similar to, say, the pandas debugging
feature `pandas.show_versions()`) that is optimized for publication
would probably be super helpful.

While #2 is probably only a small fraction of all the times where people
would want to "cite CPython", I think it's probably the most important
one, since it's performing a very specific function useful to the reader
of the paper. It also seems not terribly difficult to come up with some
guidance for unambiguously referencing sections of the documentation
and/or language reference, and having "get a DOI for the documentation"
be part of the release cycle.

Best,
Paul

P.S. I will also be at the NumFocus summit. It's been some time since
I've been an academic, but hopefully there will be an interesting
discussion about this there!

On 9/16/18 6:22 PM, Jacqueline Kazil wrote:

>
> RE: Why cite Python….
>
> I would say that in this paper —
> 

Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python

[Jacqueline Kazil]

Cool, thanks!

On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 7:19 PM Brett Cannon  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 at 15:23 Jacqueline Kazil 
> wrote:
>
>> RE: Why cite Python….
>>
>> I would say that in this paper —
>> http://conference.scipy.org/proceedings/scipy2015/pdfs/jacqueline_kazil.pdf,
>> where we introduced a new library, we should have cited Python, because the
>> library was based in Python. We were riding on the coattails of Python and
>> if Python did not exist, then this library would not exist.
>>
>> (taking this a level higher)
>> Just as someone doing research (a specific application) should cite the
>> Mesa library. Without the good and bad that is Mesa, their research would
>> have taken a different form.
>>
>> Since my Ph.D is on Mesa, I will be citing Python there.
>>
>> I think for more insight we can look at who has cited some of Guido’s
>> stuff…
>> For example:
>> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=900267235435084077_sdt=20005=0,9=en
>>
>> Does that help?
>> RE: Just like R - Versions
>>
>> @Stephen
>> Are you suggesting major versions or minor versions?
>> RE: Guido’s prio works
>>
>> Some of those have weight already. Should we be picking one those and
>> pointing people to that?
>> Final decision
>>
>> I am going to the NumFocus summit for maintainers of Science Python
>> libraries next week. I believe that the Science Python community is where
>> the main audience for this is… correct me if you think this is a wrong
>> assumption.
>>
>> I thought I could take two to three concrete formats and user test there
>> and report on how community members who would be using the citation feel.
>>
>> Good idea? Bad idea?
>>
> I think seeing how some other academics other than the ones here
> definitely wouldn't hurt.
>
> -Brett
>
>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 4:35 AM Stephen J. Turnbull <
>> turnbull.stephen...@u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote:
>>
>>> Jacqueline Kazil writes:
>>>
>>>  > *As a user, I am writing an academic paper and I need to cite Python.
>>> *
>>>
>>> I don't understand the meaning of "need" and "Python".  To understand
>>> your code, one likely needs the Language Reference and surely the
>>> Library Reference, and probably documentation of the APIs and
>>> semantics of various third party code.
>>>
>>> To just give credit to the Python project for the suite of tools
>>> you've used, a citation like the R Project's should do (I think this
>>> has appeared more than once, I copy it from José María Mateos's
>>> parallel post):
>>>
>>>  > To cite R in publications use:
>>>
>>>  >   R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical
>>>  >   computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
>>>  >   URL https://www.R-project.org/.
>>>
>>> I guess for Python that would be something like
>>>
>>> """
>>> Python Core Developers [2018].  Python: A general purpose language for
>>> computing, with batteries included.  Python Software Foundation,
>>> Beaverton, OR.  https://www.python.org/.
>>> """
>>>
>>> I like R's citation() builtin.
>>>
>>> One caveat: I get the impression that the R Project is far more
>>> centralized than Python is, that there are not huge independent
>>> projects like SciPy and NumPy and Twisted and so on, nor independent
>>> implementations of the core language like PyPy and Jython.  So I
>>> suspect that for most serious scientific computing you would need to
>>> cite one or more third-pary projects as well, and perhaps an
>>> implementation such as PyPy or Jython.
>>>
>>> Jacqueline again:
>>>
>>>  > Let's throw reproducibility out the window for now (<--- something
>>>  > I never thought I would say), because that should be captured in
>>>  > the code, not in the citations.
>>>  >
>>>  > So, if we don't need the specific version of Python, then maybe
>>>  > creating one citation is all we need.
>>>
>>> Do you realize that `3 / 2` means different computations depending on
>>> the version of Python?  And that `"a string"` produces different
>>> objects with different duck-types depending on the version?
>>>
>>> As far as handling versions, this would do, I think:
>>>
>>> f"""
>>> Python Core Developers [{release_year}].  Python: A general purpose
>>> language for computing, with batteries included, version
>>> {version_number}.  Python Software Foundation, Beaverton, OR.
>>> Project URL: https://www.python.org/.
>>> """
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jacqueline Kazil | @jackiekazil
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Python-Dev mailing list
>> Python-Dev@python.org
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
>> Unsubscribe:
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/brett%40python.org
>>
>

-- 
Jacqueline Kazil | @jackiekazil
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python

[Brett Cannon]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 at 15:23 Jacqueline Kazil  wrote:

> RE: Why cite Python….
>
> I would say that in this paper —
> http://conference.scipy.org/proceedings/scipy2015/pdfs/jacqueline_kazil.pdf,
> where we introduced a new library, we should have cited Python, because the
> library was based in Python. We were riding on the coattails of Python and
> if Python did not exist, then this library would not exist.
>
> (taking this a level higher)
> Just as someone doing research (a specific application) should cite the
> Mesa library. Without the good and bad that is Mesa, their research would
> have taken a different form.
>
> Since my Ph.D is on Mesa, I will be citing Python there.
>
> I think for more insight we can look at who has cited some of Guido’s
> stuff…
> For example:
> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=900267235435084077_sdt=20005=0,9=en
>
> Does that help?
> RE: Just like R - Versions
>
> @Stephen
> Are you suggesting major versions or minor versions?
> RE: Guido’s prio works
>
> Some of those have weight already. Should we be picking one those and
> pointing people to that?
> Final decision
>
> I am going to the NumFocus summit for maintainers of Science Python
> libraries next week. I believe that the Science Python community is where
> the main audience for this is… correct me if you think this is a wrong
> assumption.
>
> I thought I could take two to three concrete formats and user test there
> and report on how community members who would be using the citation feel.
>
> Good idea? Bad idea?
>
I think seeing how some other academics other than the ones here definitely
wouldn't hurt.

-Brett


>
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 4:35 AM Stephen J. Turnbull <
> turnbull.stephen...@u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote:
>
>> Jacqueline Kazil writes:
>>
>>  > *As a user, I am writing an academic paper and I need to cite Python. *
>>
>> I don't understand the meaning of "need" and "Python".  To understand
>> your code, one likely needs the Language Reference and surely the
>> Library Reference, and probably documentation of the APIs and
>> semantics of various third party code.
>>
>> To just give credit to the Python project for the suite of tools
>> you've used, a citation like the R Project's should do (I think this
>> has appeared more than once, I copy it from José María Mateos's
>> parallel post):
>>
>>  > To cite R in publications use:
>>
>>  >   R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical
>>  >   computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
>>  >   URL https://www.R-project.org/.
>>
>> I guess for Python that would be something like
>>
>> """
>> Python Core Developers [2018].  Python: A general purpose language for
>> computing, with batteries included.  Python Software Foundation,
>> Beaverton, OR.  https://www.python.org/.
>> """
>>
>> I like R's citation() builtin.
>>
>> One caveat: I get the impression that the R Project is far more
>> centralized than Python is, that there are not huge independent
>> projects like SciPy and NumPy and Twisted and so on, nor independent
>> implementations of the core language like PyPy and Jython.  So I
>> suspect that for most serious scientific computing you would need to
>> cite one or more third-pary projects as well, and perhaps an
>> implementation such as PyPy or Jython.
>>
>> Jacqueline again:
>>
>>  > Let's throw reproducibility out the window for now (<--- something
>>  > I never thought I would say), because that should be captured in
>>  > the code, not in the citations.
>>  >
>>  > So, if we don't need the specific version of Python, then maybe
>>  > creating one citation is all we need.
>>
>> Do you realize that `3 / 2` means different computations depending on
>> the version of Python?  And that `"a string"` produces different
>> objects with different duck-types depending on the version?
>>
>> As far as handling versions, this would do, I think:
>>
>> f"""
>> Python Core Developers [{release_year}].  Python: A general purpose
>> language for computing, with batteries included, version
>> {version_number}.  Python Software Foundation, Beaverton, OR.
>> Project URL: https://www.python.org/.
>> """
>>
>
>
> --
> Jacqueline Kazil | @jackiekazil
>
>
> ___
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/brett%40python.org
>
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python

[Jacqueline Kazil]

RE: Why cite Python….

I would say that in this paper —
http://conference.scipy.org/proceedings/scipy2015/pdfs/jacqueline_kazil.pdf,
where we introduced a new library, we should have cited Python, because the
library was based in Python. We were riding on the coattails of Python and
if Python did not exist, then this library would not exist.

(taking this a level higher)
Just as someone doing research (a specific application) should cite the
Mesa library. Without the good and bad that is Mesa, their research would
have taken a different form.

Since my Ph.D is on Mesa, I will be citing Python there.

I think for more insight we can look at who has cited some of Guido’s stuff…
For example:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=900267235435084077_sdt=20005=0,9=en

Does that help?
RE: Just like R - Versions

@Stephen
Are you suggesting major versions or minor versions?
RE: Guido’s prio works

Some of those have weight already. Should we be picking one those and
pointing people to that?
Final decision

I am going to the NumFocus summit for maintainers of Science Python
libraries next week. I believe that the Science Python community is where
the main audience for this is… correct me if you think this is a wrong
assumption.

I thought I could take two to three concrete formats and user test there
and report on how community members who would be using the citation feel.

Good idea? Bad idea?

On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 4:35 AM Stephen J. Turnbull <
turnbull.stephen...@u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote:

> Jacqueline Kazil writes:
>
>  > *As a user, I am writing an academic paper and I need to cite Python. *
>
> I don't understand the meaning of "need" and "Python".  To understand
> your code, one likely needs the Language Reference and surely the
> Library Reference, and probably documentation of the APIs and
> semantics of various third party code.
>
> To just give credit to the Python project for the suite of tools
> you've used, a citation like the R Project's should do (I think this
> has appeared more than once, I copy it from José María Mateos's
> parallel post):
>
>  > To cite R in publications use:
>
>  >   R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical
>  >   computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
>  >   URL https://www.R-project.org/.
>
> I guess for Python that would be something like
>
> """
> Python Core Developers [2018].  Python: A general purpose language for
> computing, with batteries included.  Python Software Foundation,
> Beaverton, OR.  https://www.python.org/.
> """
>
> I like R's citation() builtin.
>
> One caveat: I get the impression that the R Project is far more
> centralized than Python is, that there are not huge independent
> projects like SciPy and NumPy and Twisted and so on, nor independent
> implementations of the core language like PyPy and Jython.  So I
> suspect that for most serious scientific computing you would need to
> cite one or more third-pary projects as well, and perhaps an
> implementation such as PyPy or Jython.
>
> Jacqueline again:
>
>  > Let's throw reproducibility out the window for now (<--- something
>  > I never thought I would say), because that should be captured in
>  > the code, not in the citations.
>  >
>  > So, if we don't need the specific version of Python, then maybe
>  > creating one citation is all we need.
>
> Do you realize that `3 / 2` means different computations depending on
> the version of Python?  And that `"a string"` produces different
> objects with different duck-types depending on the version?
>
> As far as handling versions, this would do, I think:
>
> f"""
> Python Core Developers [{release_year}].  Python: A general purpose
> language for computing, with batteries included, version
> {version_number}.  Python Software Foundation, Beaverton, OR.
> Project URL: https://www.python.org/.
> """
>


-- 
Jacqueline Kazil | @jackiekazil
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Jacqueline Kazil writes:

 > *As a user, I am writing an academic paper and I need to cite Python. *

I don't understand the meaning of "need" and "Python".  To understand
your code, one likely needs the Language Reference and surely the
Library Reference, and probably documentation of the APIs and
semantics of various third party code.

To just give credit to the Python project for the suite of tools
you've used, a citation like the R Project's should do (I think this
has appeared more than once, I copy it from José María Mateos's
parallel post):

 > To cite R in publications use:

 >   R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical
 >   computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
 >   URL https://www.R-project.org/.

I guess for Python that would be something like

"""
Python Core Developers [2018].  Python: A general purpose language for
computing, with batteries included.  Python Software Foundation,
Beaverton, OR.  https://www.python.org/.
"""

I like R's citation() builtin.

One caveat: I get the impression that the R Project is far more
centralized than Python is, that there are not huge independent
projects like SciPy and NumPy and Twisted and so on, nor independent
implementations of the core language like PyPy and Jython.  So I
suspect that for most serious scientific computing you would need to
cite one or more third-pary projects as well, and perhaps an
implementation such as PyPy or Jython.

Jacqueline again:

 > Let's throw reproducibility out the window for now (<--- something
 > I never thought I would say), because that should be captured in
 > the code, not in the citations.
 >
 > So, if we don't need the specific version of Python, then maybe
 > creating one citation is all we need.

Do you realize that `3 / 2` means different computations depending on
the version of Python?  And that `"a string"` produces different
objects with different duck-types depending on the version?

As far as handling versions, this would do, I think:

f"""
Python Core Developers [{release_year}].  Python: A general purpose
language for computing, with batteries included, version
{version_number}.  Python Software Foundation, Beaverton, OR.
Project URL: https://www.python.org/.
"""
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python

[José María Mateos]

On Sun, Sep 09, 2018 at 03:43:13PM -0400, Jacqueline Kazil wrote:
> The PSF has received a few inquiries asking the question — “How do I cite
> Python?”So, I am reaching out to you all to figure this out.

What about the R approach?

---
> citation()

To cite R in publications use:

  R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical
  computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
  URL https://www.R-project.org/.

A BibTeX entry for LaTeX users is

  @Manual{,
title = {R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing},
author = {{R Core Team}},
organization = {R Foundation for Statistical Computing},
address = {Vienna, Austria},
year = {2018},
url = {https://www.R-project.org/},
  }

We have invested a lot of time and effort in creating R, please cite it
when using it for data analysis. See also ‘citation("pkgname")’ for
citing R packages.
---

Cheers,

-- 
José María (Chema) Mateos
https://rinzewind.org/blog-es || https://rinzewind.org/blog-en
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python

[Chris Barker via Python-Dev]

>
> On Saturday, September 15, 2018, Jacqueline Kazil 
> wrote:
>
>> I just got caught up on the thread. This is a really great discussion.
>> Thank you for all the contributions.
>>
>> Before we get into the details, let's go back to the main use case we are
>> trying to solve.
>> *As a user, I am writing an academic paper and I need to cite Python. *
>>
>
ai'd still like to know *why* you need to cite python 0 I can imagine
multiple reasons, and that may influence the best document to cite.


> Let's throw reproducibility out the window for now (<--- something I never
>> thought I would say), because that should be captured in the code, not in
>> the citations.
>>
>
thanks for that clarification.


> So, if we don't need the specific version of Python, then maybe creating
>> one citation is all we need.
>>
>
well, Python does evolve over time, so depending on why you are citing it,
version may matter.

But i suggest hat the language reference be used as the "primary" citation
for Python, and then you can cite the version that is current at the time
of your paper writing (Or the version that's relevant to your paper).

And that gives it some good Google juice as well.
>>
>
> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en=python+van+Rossum *
>

looks like the language reference shows there -- so good to go.

-CHB


-- 

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR(206) 526-6959   voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
Seattle, WA  98115   (206) 526-6317   main reception

chris.bar...@noaa.gov
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python

[Wes Turner]

On Saturday, September 15, 2018, Jacqueline Kazil 
wrote:

> I just got caught up on the thread. This is a really great discussion.
> Thank you for all the contributions.
>
> Before we get into the details, let's go back to the main use case we are
> trying to solve.
> *As a user, I am writing an academic paper and I need to cite Python. *
>
> Let's throw reproducibility out the window for now (<--- something I never
> thought I would say), because that should be captured in the code, not in
> the citations.
>
> So, if we don't need the specific version of Python, then maybe creating
> one citation is all we need.
> And that gives it some good Google juice as well.
>

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en=python+van+Rossum *

https://www.semanticscholar.org/search?q=Python%20van%20Rossum

https://www.mendeley.com/research-papers/?query=Python+van+Rossum

https://www.zotero.org/search/q/Python/type/group

With an e.g. {Zotero,} group, it would be easy to cite the Python citation
with the greatest centrality.
https://networkx.github.io/documentation/stable/reference/algorithms/centrality.html

A DOI URN/URI/URL really is easiest to aggregate the edges of/for.

- [ ] Link to the new citation(s) page in the Python docs from the SciPy
citing page
https://www.scipy.org/citing.html

NP. YW!


> Thoughts?
>
> (Once we nail down one or many, I think we can then move into the details
> of the content of the citation.)
>
> -Jackie
>
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:47 AM Wes Turner  wrote:
>
>> There was a thread about adding __cite__ to things and a tool to collect
>> those citations awhile back.
>>
>> "[Python-ideas] Add a __cite__ method for scientific packages"
>> http://markmail.org/thread/rekmbmh64qxwcind
>>
>> Which CPython source file should contain this __cite__ value?
>>
>> ... On a related note, you should ask the list admin to append a URL to
>> each mailing list message whenever this list is upgraded to mm3; so that
>> you can all be appropriately cited.
>>
>> On Thursday, September 13, 2018, Wes Turner  wrote:
>>
>>> Do you guys think we should all cite Grub and BusyBox and bash and libc
>>> and setuptools and pip and openssl and GNU/Linux and LXC and Docker; or
>>> else it's plagiarism for us all?
>>>
>>> #OpenAccess
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, September 12, 2018, Stephen J. Turnbull <
>>> turnbull.stephen...@u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote:
>>>
 Chris Barker via Python-Dev writes:

  > But "I wrote some code in Python to produce these statistics" --
  > does that need a citation?

 That depends on what you mean by "statistics" and whether (as one
 should) one makes the code available.  If the code is published or
 "available on request", definitely, Python should be cited.  If not,
 and by "statistics" you mean the kind of things provided by Steven
 d'Aprano's excellent statistics module (mean, median, standard
 deviation, etc), maybe no citation is needed.  But anything more
 esoteric than that (even linear regression), yeah, I would say you
 should cite both Python and any reference you used to learn the
 algorithm or formulas, in the context of mentioning that your
 statistics are home-brew, not produced by one of the recognized
 applications for doing so.

  > If so, maybe that would take a different form.

 Yes, it would.  But not so different: eg, version is analogous to
 edition when citing a book.

  > Anyway, hard to make this decision without some idea how the
  > citation is intended to be used.

 Same as any other citation, (1) to give credit to those responsible
 for providing a resource (this is why publishers and their metadata of
 city are still conventionally included), and (2) to show where that
 resource can be obtained.  AFAICS, both motivations are universally
 applicable in polite society.  NB: Replication is an important reason
 for wanting to acquire the resource, but it's not the only one.

 I think underlying your comment is the question of *what* resource is
 being cited.  I can think of three offhand that might be characterized
 as "Python".  First, the PSF, as a provider of funding.  There is a
 conventional form for this: a footnote on the title or author's name
 saying "The author acknowledges [a] 
 grant [grant identifier if available] from the Python Software
 Foundation."  I usually orally mention them in presentations, too.
 That one's easy; *everybody* should *always* do that.

 The rest of these, sort of an ideal to strive for.  If you keep a
 bibliographic database, and there are now quite a few efforts to crowd
 source them, it's easier to go the whole 9 yards than to skimp.  But
 except in cases where we don't need to even mention the code, probably
 we should be citing, for reasons of courtesy to readers as well as
 authors, editors, and publishers (as disgusting as many publishers are
 

Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python

[Jacqueline Kazil]

I just got caught up on the thread. This is a really great discussion.
Thank you for all the contributions.

Before we get into the details, let's go back to the main use case we are
trying to solve.
*As a user, I am writing an academic paper and I need to cite Python. *

Let's throw reproducibility out the window for now (<--- something I never
thought I would say), because that should be captured in the code, not in
the citations.

So, if we don't need the specific version of Python, then maybe creating
one citation is all we need.
And that gives it some good Google juice as well.

Thoughts?

(Once we nail down one or many, I think we can then move into the details
of the content of the citation.)

-Jackie

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:47 AM Wes Turner  wrote:

> There was a thread about adding __cite__ to things and a tool to collect
> those citations awhile back.
>
> "[Python-ideas] Add a __cite__ method for scientific packages"
> http://markmail.org/thread/rekmbmh64qxwcind
>
> Which CPython source file should contain this __cite__ value?
>
> ... On a related note, you should ask the list admin to append a URL to
> each mailing list message whenever this list is upgraded to mm3; so that
> you can all be appropriately cited.
>
> On Thursday, September 13, 2018, Wes Turner  wrote:
>
>> Do you guys think we should all cite Grub and BusyBox and bash and libc
>> and setuptools and pip and openssl and GNU/Linux and LXC and Docker; or
>> else it's plagiarism for us all?
>>
>> #OpenAccess
>>
>> On Wednesday, September 12, 2018, Stephen J. Turnbull <
>> turnbull.stephen...@u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote:
>>
>>> Chris Barker via Python-Dev writes:
>>>
>>>  > But "I wrote some code in Python to produce these statistics" --
>>>  > does that need a citation?
>>>
>>> That depends on what you mean by "statistics" and whether (as one
>>> should) one makes the code available.  If the code is published or
>>> "available on request", definitely, Python should be cited.  If not,
>>> and by "statistics" you mean the kind of things provided by Steven
>>> d'Aprano's excellent statistics module (mean, median, standard
>>> deviation, etc), maybe no citation is needed.  But anything more
>>> esoteric than that (even linear regression), yeah, I would say you
>>> should cite both Python and any reference you used to learn the
>>> algorithm or formulas, in the context of mentioning that your
>>> statistics are home-brew, not produced by one of the recognized
>>> applications for doing so.
>>>
>>>  > If so, maybe that would take a different form.
>>>
>>> Yes, it would.  But not so different: eg, version is analogous to
>>> edition when citing a book.
>>>
>>>  > Anyway, hard to make this decision without some idea how the
>>>  > citation is intended to be used.
>>>
>>> Same as any other citation, (1) to give credit to those responsible
>>> for providing a resource (this is why publishers and their metadata of
>>> city are still conventionally included), and (2) to show where that
>>> resource can be obtained.  AFAICS, both motivations are universally
>>> applicable in polite society.  NB: Replication is an important reason
>>> for wanting to acquire the resource, but it's not the only one.
>>>
>>> I think underlying your comment is the question of *what* resource is
>>> being cited.  I can think of three offhand that might be characterized
>>> as "Python".  First, the PSF, as a provider of funding.  There is a
>>> conventional form for this: a footnote on the title or author's name
>>> saying "The author acknowledges [a] 
>>> grant [grant identifier if available] from the Python Software
>>> Foundation."  I usually orally mention them in presentations, too.
>>> That one's easy; *everybody* should *always* do that.
>>>
>>> The rest of these, sort of an ideal to strive for.  If you keep a
>>> bibliographic database, and there are now quite a few efforts to crowd
>>> source them, it's easier to go the whole 9 yards than to skimp.  But
>>> except in cases where we don't need to even mention the code, probably
>>> we should be citing, for reasons of courtesy to readers as well as
>>> authors, editors, and publishers (as disgusting as many publishers are
>>> as members of society, they do play a role in providing many resources
>>> ---we should find ways to compete them into good behavior, not
>>> ostracize them).
>>>
>>> The second is the Python *language and standard library*.  Then the
>>> Language Reference and/or the Library Reference should be cited
>>> briefly when Python is first mentioned, and in the text introducing a
>>> program or program fragment, with a full citation in the bibliography.
>>> I tentatively suggest that the metadata for the Language Reference
>>> would be
>>>
>>> Author: principal author(s) (Guido?) et al. OR python.org OR
>>> Python Contributors
>>> Title: The Python Language Reference
>>> Version: to match Python version used (if relevant, different
>>> versions each get full citations), 

Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python

[Wes Turner]

There was a thread about adding __cite__ to things and a tool to collect
those citations awhile back.

"[Python-ideas] Add a __cite__ method for scientific packages"
http://markmail.org/thread/rekmbmh64qxwcind

Which CPython source file should contain this __cite__ value?

... On a related note, you should ask the list admin to append a URL to
each mailing list message whenever this list is upgraded to mm3; so that
you can all be appropriately cited.

On Thursday, September 13, 2018, Wes Turner  wrote:

> Do you guys think we should all cite Grub and BusyBox and bash and libc
> and setuptools and pip and openssl and GNU/Linux and LXC and Docker; or
> else it's plagiarism for us all?
>
> #OpenAccess
>
> On Wednesday, September 12, 2018, Stephen J. Turnbull <
> turnbull.stephen...@u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote:
>
>> Chris Barker via Python-Dev writes:
>>
>>  > But "I wrote some code in Python to produce these statistics" --
>>  > does that need a citation?
>>
>> That depends on what you mean by "statistics" and whether (as one
>> should) one makes the code available.  If the code is published or
>> "available on request", definitely, Python should be cited.  If not,
>> and by "statistics" you mean the kind of things provided by Steven
>> d'Aprano's excellent statistics module (mean, median, standard
>> deviation, etc), maybe no citation is needed.  But anything more
>> esoteric than that (even linear regression), yeah, I would say you
>> should cite both Python and any reference you used to learn the
>> algorithm or formulas, in the context of mentioning that your
>> statistics are home-brew, not produced by one of the recognized
>> applications for doing so.
>>
>>  > If so, maybe that would take a different form.
>>
>> Yes, it would.  But not so different: eg, version is analogous to
>> edition when citing a book.
>>
>>  > Anyway, hard to make this decision without some idea how the
>>  > citation is intended to be used.
>>
>> Same as any other citation, (1) to give credit to those responsible
>> for providing a resource (this is why publishers and their metadata of
>> city are still conventionally included), and (2) to show where that
>> resource can be obtained.  AFAICS, both motivations are universally
>> applicable in polite society.  NB: Replication is an important reason
>> for wanting to acquire the resource, but it's not the only one.
>>
>> I think underlying your comment is the question of *what* resource is
>> being cited.  I can think of three offhand that might be characterized
>> as "Python".  First, the PSF, as a provider of funding.  There is a
>> conventional form for this: a footnote on the title or author's name
>> saying "The author acknowledges [a] 
>> grant [grant identifier if available] from the Python Software
>> Foundation."  I usually orally mention them in presentations, too.
>> That one's easy; *everybody* should *always* do that.
>>
>> The rest of these, sort of an ideal to strive for.  If you keep a
>> bibliographic database, and there are now quite a few efforts to crowd
>> source them, it's easier to go the whole 9 yards than to skimp.  But
>> except in cases where we don't need to even mention the code, probably
>> we should be citing, for reasons of courtesy to readers as well as
>> authors, editors, and publishers (as disgusting as many publishers are
>> as members of society, they do play a role in providing many resources
>> ---we should find ways to compete them into good behavior, not
>> ostracize them).
>>
>> The second is the Python *language and standard library*.  Then the
>> Language Reference and/or the Library Reference should be cited
>> briefly when Python is first mentioned, and in the text introducing a
>> program or program fragment, with a full citation in the bibliography.
>> I tentatively suggest that the metadata for the Language Reference
>> would be
>>
>> Author: principal author(s) (Guido?) et al. OR python.org OR
>> Python Contributors
>> Title: The Python Language Reference
>> Version: to match Python version used (if relevant, different
>> versions each get full citations), probably should not be
>> "current"
>> Publisher: Python Software Foundation
>> Date: of the relevant version
>> Location: City of legal address of PSF
>> URL: to version used (probably should not be the default)
>> Date accessed: if "current" was used
>>
>> The Library reference would be the same except for Title.
>>
>> The third is a *particular implementation*.  In that case the metadata
>> would be
>>
>> Author: principal author(s) (Guido) et al. OR python.org OR
>> Python Contributors
>> Title: The cPython Python distribution
>> Python Version: as appropriate (if relevant, different versions each
>> get full citations), never "current"
>> Distributor Version: if different from Python version (eg, additional
>> Debian cruft)
>> Publisher: Distributor (eg, PSF, Debian Project, 

Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python

[Wes Turner]

Do you guys think we should all cite Grub and BusyBox and bash and libc and
setuptools and pip and openssl and GNU/Linux and LXC and Docker; or else
it's plagiarism for us all?

#OpenAccess

On Wednesday, September 12, 2018, Stephen J. Turnbull <
turnbull.stephen...@u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote:

> Chris Barker via Python-Dev writes:
>
>  > But "I wrote some code in Python to produce these statistics" --
>  > does that need a citation?
>
> That depends on what you mean by "statistics" and whether (as one
> should) one makes the code available.  If the code is published or
> "available on request", definitely, Python should be cited.  If not,
> and by "statistics" you mean the kind of things provided by Steven
> d'Aprano's excellent statistics module (mean, median, standard
> deviation, etc), maybe no citation is needed.  But anything more
> esoteric than that (even linear regression), yeah, I would say you
> should cite both Python and any reference you used to learn the
> algorithm or formulas, in the context of mentioning that your
> statistics are home-brew, not produced by one of the recognized
> applications for doing so.
>
>  > If so, maybe that would take a different form.
>
> Yes, it would.  But not so different: eg, version is analogous to
> edition when citing a book.
>
>  > Anyway, hard to make this decision without some idea how the
>  > citation is intended to be used.
>
> Same as any other citation, (1) to give credit to those responsible
> for providing a resource (this is why publishers and their metadata of
> city are still conventionally included), and (2) to show where that
> resource can be obtained.  AFAICS, both motivations are universally
> applicable in polite society.  NB: Replication is an important reason
> for wanting to acquire the resource, but it's not the only one.
>
> I think underlying your comment is the question of *what* resource is
> being cited.  I can think of three offhand that might be characterized
> as "Python".  First, the PSF, as a provider of funding.  There is a
> conventional form for this: a footnote on the title or author's name
> saying "The author acknowledges [a] 
> grant [grant identifier if available] from the Python Software
> Foundation."  I usually orally mention them in presentations, too.
> That one's easy; *everybody* should *always* do that.
>
> The rest of these, sort of an ideal to strive for.  If you keep a
> bibliographic database, and there are now quite a few efforts to crowd
> source them, it's easier to go the whole 9 yards than to skimp.  But
> except in cases where we don't need to even mention the code, probably
> we should be citing, for reasons of courtesy to readers as well as
> authors, editors, and publishers (as disgusting as many publishers are
> as members of society, they do play a role in providing many resources
> ---we should find ways to compete them into good behavior, not
> ostracize them).
>
> The second is the Python *language and standard library*.  Then the
> Language Reference and/or the Library Reference should be cited
> briefly when Python is first mentioned, and in the text introducing a
> program or program fragment, with a full citation in the bibliography.
> I tentatively suggest that the metadata for the Language Reference
> would be
>
> Author: principal author(s) (Guido?) et al. OR python.org OR
> Python Contributors
> Title: The Python Language Reference
> Version: to match Python version used (if relevant, different
> versions each get full citations), probably should not be
> "current"
> Publisher: Python Software Foundation
> Date: of the relevant version
> Location: City of legal address of PSF
> URL: to version used (probably should not be the default)
> Date accessed: if "current" was used
>
> The Library reference would be the same except for Title.
>
> The third is a *particular implementation*.  In that case the metadata
> would be
>
> Author: principal author(s) (Guido) et al. OR python.org OR
> Python Contributors
> Title: The cPython Python distribution
> Python Version: as appropriate (if relevant, different versions each
> get full citations), never "current"
> Distributor Version: if different from Python version (eg, additional
> Debian cruft)
> Publisher: Distributor (eg, PSF, Debian Project, Anaconda Inc.)
> Date: of the relevant version
> Location: City of legal address of distributor
>
> If downloaded:
>
> URL: to version used (including git commit SHA1 if available)
> Date accessed: download from distributor, not installation date
>
> If received on physical medium: use the "usual" form of citation for a
> collection of individual works (even if Python was the only thing on
> it).  Probably the only additional information needed would be the
> distributor as editor of the collection and the name of the
> collection.
>
> In most cases I can think of, if the implementation is 

Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Chris Barker via Python-Dev writes:

 > But "I wrote some code in Python to produce these statistics" --
 > does that need a citation?

That depends on what you mean by "statistics" and whether (as one
should) one makes the code available.  If the code is published or
"available on request", definitely, Python should be cited.  If not,
and by "statistics" you mean the kind of things provided by Steven
d'Aprano's excellent statistics module (mean, median, standard
deviation, etc), maybe no citation is needed.  But anything more
esoteric than that (even linear regression), yeah, I would say you
should cite both Python and any reference you used to learn the
algorithm or formulas, in the context of mentioning that your
statistics are home-brew, not produced by one of the recognized
applications for doing so.

 > If so, maybe that would take a different form.

Yes, it would.  But not so different: eg, version is analogous to
edition when citing a book.

 > Anyway, hard to make this decision without some idea how the
 > citation is intended to be used.

Same as any other citation, (1) to give credit to those responsible
for providing a resource (this is why publishers and their metadata of
city are still conventionally included), and (2) to show where that
resource can be obtained.  AFAICS, both motivations are universally
applicable in polite society.  NB: Replication is an important reason
for wanting to acquire the resource, but it's not the only one.

I think underlying your comment is the question of *what* resource is
being cited.  I can think of three offhand that might be characterized
as "Python".  First, the PSF, as a provider of funding.  There is a
conventional form for this: a footnote on the title or author's name
saying "The author acknowledges [a] 
grant [grant identifier if available] from the Python Software
Foundation."  I usually orally mention them in presentations, too.
That one's easy; *everybody* should *always* do that.

The rest of these, sort of an ideal to strive for.  If you keep a
bibliographic database, and there are now quite a few efforts to crowd
source them, it's easier to go the whole 9 yards than to skimp.  But
except in cases where we don't need to even mention the code, probably
we should be citing, for reasons of courtesy to readers as well as
authors, editors, and publishers (as disgusting as many publishers are
as members of society, they do play a role in providing many resources
---we should find ways to compete them into good behavior, not
ostracize them).

The second is the Python *language and standard library*.  Then the
Language Reference and/or the Library Reference should be cited
briefly when Python is first mentioned, and in the text introducing a
program or program fragment, with a full citation in the bibliography.
I tentatively suggest that the metadata for the Language Reference
would be

Author: principal author(s) (Guido?) et al. OR python.org OR
Python Contributors
Title: The Python Language Reference
Version: to match Python version used (if relevant, different
versions each get full citations), probably should not be
"current"
Publisher: Python Software Foundation
Date: of the relevant version
Location: City of legal address of PSF
URL: to version used (probably should not be the default)
Date accessed: if "current" was used

The Library reference would be the same except for Title.

The third is a *particular implementation*.  In that case the metadata
would be

Author: principal author(s) (Guido) et al. OR python.org OR
Python Contributors
Title: The cPython Python distribution
Python Version: as appropriate (if relevant, different versions each
get full citations), never "current"
Distributor Version: if different from Python version (eg, additional
Debian cruft)
Publisher: Distributor (eg, PSF, Debian Project, Anaconda Inc.)
Date: of the relevant version
Location: City of legal address of distributor

If downloaded:

URL: to version used (including git commit SHA1 if available)
Date accessed: download from distributor, not installation date

If received on physical medium: use the "usual" form of citation for a
collection of individual works (even if Python was the only thing on
it).  Probably the only additional information needed would be the
distributor as editor of the collection and the name of the
collection.

In most cases I can think of, if the implementation is cited, the
Language and Library References should be cited, too.

Finally, if Python or components were modified for the project, the
modified version should be preserved in a repository and a VCS
identifier provided.  This does not imply the repository need be
publicly accessible, of course, although it might be for other reasons
(eg, in a GSoC project,wherever or if hosted for free on GitHub).

I doubt that "URNs" like DOI and ISBN are applicable, but if available

Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 10:35:04PM +0200, Chris Barker wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano 
> wrote:
> 
> > I think this thread is about *academic* citations.
> 
> yes, I assumed that as well, what in any of my posts made you think
> otherwise?

When you started talking about *articles* rather than *papers*. Articles 
are far more general and include anything up to and including posts on 
Reddit.

Anyway, I think until Jackie returns to clarify what precisely she hopes 
to gain, I don't think further discussion on-list is warranted.


-- 
Steve
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python

[Chris Barker via Python-Dev]

Thanks Wes.

"""
> Python
>
> Guido van Rossum: Scripting the Web with Python. In "Scripting Languages:
> Automating the Web", World Wide Web Journal, Volume 2, Issue 2, Spring
> 1997, O'Reilly.
>
> Aaron Watters, Guido van Rossum, James C. Ahlstrom: Internet Programming
> with Python. MIS Press/Henry Holt publishers, New York, 1996.
>
> Guido van Rossum: Python Library Reference. May 1995. CWI Report CS-R9524.
>
> Guido van Rossum: Python Reference Manual. May 1995. CWI Report CS-R9525.
>
> Guido van Rossum: Python Tutorial. May 1995. CWI Report CS-R9526.
>
> Guido van Rossum: Extending and Embedding the Python Interpreter. May
> 1995. CWI Report CS-R9527.
>
> Guido van Rossum, Jelke de Boer: Linking a Stub Generator (AIL) to a
> Prototyping Language (Python). Spring 1991 EurOpen Conference Proceedings
> (May 20-24, 1991) Tromso, Norway.
> """
>

Of these, I think the Python Reference Manual is the only one that comes
close as a general citation for the langue itself. And it would be a
particular version, presumably. But those old versions are published as
tech reports by a know institution -- easier to cite than teh PSF.

I've seen folks cite various academic articles to satisfy a citation for a
language or library, but often that is simply because that is the one thing
they could find that is citable in the standard way.

sure -- though I don't think "article" is the correct catagory -- probbaly
technical report.

Looking at the current "official" docs, the copyright is held by the PSF,
but I see no author mentioned (I recall it said Fred Drake many years
back...) I take that back -- the PDF version has an author.

So I'm thinking maybe:

@techreport{techreport,
  author   = {Guido van Rossum and the Python development team},
  title= {Python Language Reference, release 3.7.0},
  institution  = {Python Software Foundation},
  year = 2018,
  address  = {9450 SW Gemini Dr. ECM# 90772, Beaverton, OR 97008 USA},
  number   = 3.7,
  url .= {https://docs.python.org/release/3.7.0/},
}

I used "Guido van Rossum and the Python development team" as the Author, as
that's what it says on the PDF version. Not sure how bibliography software
will deal with that...

And what do we do with version? part of the title, or (ab)use number (Or
volume, or )

And it would be better to cite the entire standard docs, rather than just
the language reference, but I"m not sure what to call it -- there is no
single document with a title.

And a DOI for each release would be nice.

-CHB

-- 

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR(206) 526-6959   voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
Seattle, WA  98115   (206) 526-6317   main reception

chris.bar...@noaa.gov
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python

[Chris Barker via Python-Dev]

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano 
wrote:

> I think this thread is about *academic* citations.


yes, I assumed that as well, what in any of my posts made you think
otherwise?


> There's a metric ton of information on the web about citing software,
> there are existing standards, and I really think you are
> over-complicating this. See, for example:
>
> https://www.software.ac.uk/how-cite-software
>
> http://www.citethisforme.com/cite/software
>
> https://openresearchsoftware.metajnl.com/about/#q12


The fact that those posts exist demonstrates that this is anything but a
solved problem.

Its not our job to tell academics how to cite, they already have a
> number of standardized templates that they use, but it is our job to
> tell them what information to fill into the template.
>

yes, of course -- I don't know why this thread got sidetracked into
citation formats, that has nothing to do with it. Or as the op said, that's
"the easy part"

> Lets say one were to write an article about how different computer
> > languages express functional programming concepts -- you may want to cite
> > Python, but you are not trying to identify a specific version for
> > reproducible results.
>
> I don't think we need to lose any sleep over how random bloggers and
> Redditors informally cite Python.


Why in the world would you think "article" meant random bloggers? In
BiBTex, for instance, a paper in a peer reviewed journal is called an
"article", as apposed to a book, or chapter, or inproceedings, or
techreport, or As this whole thread is about academic citations, I
assumed that...

I think the focus here is on academic
> citations, which have rather precise and standard requirements.


not for software, yet.


> No need
> to expand the scope of this problem to arbitrary mentions of Python.
>

I was not expanding it -- I was hoping to contract it -- or at least better
define it.


> Of course it is possible that I've completely misunderstood Jackie's
> request. If so, hopefully she will speak up soon.


I think we're all on the same page about that, actually.

My point, to be more pedantic about it, is that an academic paper might be
*about* Python in some way, or it might describe work that *used* Python as
a tool to accomplish some other understanding. These *may* require a
different citation.

And a citation that satisfies academic criteria for using Python may not be
enough to assure reproducible results.

> And see Wes Turner's note -- it is highly unlikely that a single citation
> > to a standard document or something will be enough for reproducibility
> > anyway.
>
> The academic community seems to think that it is. We don't have to tell
> them that they're wrong.


The Academic community has a really bad track record with reproducible
results for computationally based research -- it is not a solved problem.

And it's not a "they" -- many of us on this list are part of the academic
community.

-CHB


-- 

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR(206) 526-6959   voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
Seattle, WA  98115   (206) 526-6317   main reception

chris.bar...@noaa.gov
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python

[Wes Turner]

On Sunday, September 9, 2018, Wes Turner  wrote:

> "Python Programming Language" (van Rossum, et. Al) 
>
> ?
>
> Should there be a URL and/or a DOI?
>

http://www.python.org/~guido/Publications.html
https://gvanrossum.github.io/Publications.html
lists a number of Python citations:

"""
Python

Guido van Rossum: Scripting the Web with Python. In "Scripting Languages:
Automating the Web", World Wide Web Journal, Volume 2, Issue 2, Spring
1997, O'Reilly.

Aaron Watters, Guido van Rossum, James C. Ahlstrom: Internet Programming
with Python. MIS Press/Henry Holt publishers, New York, 1996.

Guido van Rossum: Python Library Reference. May 1995. CWI Report CS-R9524.

Guido van Rossum: Python Reference Manual. May 1995. CWI Report CS-R9525.

Guido van Rossum: Python Tutorial. May 1995. CWI Report CS-R9526.

Guido van Rossum: Extending and Embedding the Python Interpreter. May 1995.
CWI Report CS-R9527.

Guido van Rossum, Jelke de Boer: Linking a Stub Generator (AIL) to a
Prototyping Language (Python). Spring 1991 EurOpen Conference Proceedings
(May 20-24, 1991) Tromso, Norway.
"""


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Python#Version_release_dates cites
http://python-history.blogspot.com/2009/01/brief-timeline-of-python.html as
a reference (for Python versions up to 2.6 and 3.0):

- 0.9 - 1991
- 1.0 - 1994
- 2.0 - 2000
- 3.0 - 2008
  - 3.7 - 2018


Maybe it would be most productive for us to discuss the fields in the
proposed citation?

~"PSF is the author"


@article{python,
 title={{P}ython ...},
 author={Van Rossum, G. and Python Software Foundation (PSF), The.} ,
 journal={ },
 volume={ },
 pages={ },
 year={ }
}
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 11:16:08AM +0200, Chris Barker wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 3:48 AM, Steven D'Aprano 
> wrote:
> 
> > > That is about reproducible results, which is really a different thing
> > than
> > > the usual citations.
> >
> > I don't think it is. I think you are seeing a distinction that is not
> > there.
> 
> 
> no need for us to agree on that, but there are still multiple reasons /
> ways you might want to cite Python, and what you would want to cite would
> be different.

I think this thread is about *academic* citations. I know the feature 
request I linked to earlier is, because I opened it and that's what I 
intended :-)

Informal citations can include as much or as little information as you 
care to give. It could be as little as "use Python" or it could be a 
link to a specific branch or tag in a repo, complete with detailed 
instructions on building the environment up to and including the OS and 
processor type. But those sorts of detailed build instructions aren't 
really a *citation*, they are more along the lines of the 
experimental design ("First, compile Linux using gcc ...").

There's a metric ton of information on the web about citing software, 
there are existing standards, and I really think you are 
over-complicating this. See, for example:

https://www.software.ac.uk/how-cite-software

http://www.citethisforme.com/cite/software

https://openresearchsoftware.metajnl.com/about/#q12

Its not our job to tell academics how to cite, they already have a 
number of standardised templates that they use, but it is our job to 
tell them what information to fill into the template.


> Lets say one were to write an article about how different computer
> languages express functional programming concepts -- you may want to cite
> Python, but you are not trying to identify a specific version for
> reproducible results.

I don't think we need to lose any sleep over how random bloggers and 
Redditors informally cite Python. I think the focus here is on academic 
citations, which have rather precise and standard requirements. No need 
to expand the scope of this problem to arbitrary mentions of Python.

Besides, if we have a sys.cite() function that provides the relevant 
information, bloggers etc will soon learn to pick and choose the bits 
they care about from it, even if they don't give a proper academic style 
citation.

Of course it is possible that I've completely misunderstood Jackie's 
request. If so, hopefully she will speak up soon.



> And see Wes Turner's note -- it is highly unlikely that a single citation
> to a standard document or something will be enough for reproducibility
> anyway.

The academic community seems to think that it is. We don't have to tell 
them that they're wrong.


-- 
Steve
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python

[Chris Barker via Python-Dev]

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 3:48 AM, Steven D'Aprano 
wrote:

> > That is about reproducible results, which is really a different thing
> than
> > the usual citations.
>
> I don't think it is. I think you are seeing a distinction that is not
> there.


no need for us to agree on that, but there are still multiple reasons /
ways you might want to cite Python, and what you would want to cite would
be different.

Lets say one were to write an article about how different computer
languages express functional programming concepts -- you may want to cite
Python, but you are not trying to identify a specific version for
reproducible results.

And see Wes Turner's note -- it is highly unlikely that a single citation
to a standard document or something will be enough for reproducibility
anyway.

-CHB

-- 

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR(206) 526-6959   voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
Seattle, WA  98115   (206) 526-6317   main reception

chris.bar...@noaa.gov
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python

[Wes Turner]

I also see reproducibility and citation graphs as distinct concepts.

If it's reproducibility you're after, bibliographic citations are very
unlikely to enable someone else to assemble an identical build environment
from which the same conclusion should be repeatably derivable.

A ScholarlyArticle can be reproducible with no citations whatsoever.
A ScholarlyArticle may very likely have many citations and still be
woefully unreproducible.

This citation doesn't contain a URL, but still isn't quite useless (while
the paper is excellent); because there's at least a DOI string:

Sandve GK, Nekrutenko A, Taylor J, Hovig E (2013) Ten Simple Rules for
Reproducible Computational Research. PLoS Comput Biol 9(10): e1003285.
doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003285

> Rule 3: Archive the Exact Versions of All External Programs Used

mybinder.org builds Jupyter containers from git repositories that contain
config files with repo2docker.

https://repo2docker.readthedocs.io/en/latest/config_files.html#configuration-files
"""
Dockerfile
environment.yml
requirements.txt
REQUIRE
install.R
apt.txt
setup.py
postBuild
runtime.txt
"""

Specifying the exact version of Python (and what package it was installed
from and/or what URL the source was obtained and built from) is no
substitute for hashes of the 'pinned' versions of said artifacts.

# includes the python version
$ conda env export -f environment.yml

# these do not include the python version
$ pip freeze -r requirements.txt --all
$ pipenv lock # > Pipfile.lock
$ pipenv sync # < Pipfile.lock

Uploading a built container or VM image to e.g. Docker Hub / GitLab
Container Registry / Vagrant Cloud is another way to ensure that research
findings are reproducible.
- Dockerfile, docker-compose.yml
- Vagrantfile

> Rule 4: Version Control All Custom Scripts

https://mozillascience.github.io/code-research-object/ (FigShare + GitHub
=> DOI citation URI)

https://guides.github.com/activities/citable-code/ (Zenodo + GitHub => DOI
citation URI)

...

Is it necessary to cite Python (or all packages) if you're not building a
derivative of Python or said packages?

It's definitely a good idea to "Archive the Exact Versions of All External
Programs Used"; but IDK that those are best represented with bibliographic
citations. Really, a link to the Homepage, Source, Docs, and Wikipedia page
are probably more helpful to a reviewer that's not familiar with and wants
to help support by linking dereferenceable URLs and https://5stardata.info.

While out of scope and OT, it's worth mentioning that search engines index
https://schema.org/Dataset metadata; which is helpful for data reuse and
autodiscovering requisite premises for the argument presented in a
https://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle .

A citation for each MAJ.MIN.PATCH revision of CPython (and/or other
excellent packages) might be a bit much.

On Monday, September 10, 2018, Steven D'Aprano  wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 09:25:29PM +0200, Chris Barker via Python-Dev
> wrote:
> > I"d like ot know what thee citations are expected to be used for?
> >
> > i.e. -- usually, academic papers have a collection of citiations to
> > acknowledge where you got an idea, or fact, or  It serves both to
> > jusstify something and make it clear that it is not your own idea (i.e.
> not
> > pagerism).
>
> [
> > That is about reproducible results, which is really a different thing
> than
> > the usual citations.
>
> I don't think it is. I think you are seeing a distinction that is not
> there. If citations were just about acknowledgement, we could say "I got
> this idea from Bob" and be done with it. Citations are about identifying
> the *exact* source so that anyone can reproduce the given ideas by
> checking not just "Bob" but the specific page number of a specific
> edition of a specific work.
>
> So the requirement for precision is no different between papers and
> software, and the academic standards for citing software already take
> that into account. There are challenges with software, to be sure --
> code is much more ephemeral, there may be literally hundreds of
> authors, etc. But in principle, the kinds of information needed to
> cite a software package is known. The major citation styles already
> include this. When you are using a specific style, this page:
>
> https://openresearchsoftware.metajnl.com/about/
>
> suggests a few formats, depending on how you got access to the software.
>
> The bottom line is, we don't have to guess what information to provide.
> People like Jacqueline can tell us what they need, and we'll just fill
> in the values.
>
> The people citing Python know what information they need, we just have
> to help them get it. I think that the best way to do that is to provide
> the correct information in a single place, in a single, standard format,
> and let them choose the appropriate citation style for their
> publication.
>
> Jackie, do I have that right?
>
>
>
> --
> Steve
> ___

Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 09:25:29PM +0200, Chris Barker via Python-Dev wrote:
> I"d like ot know what thee citations are expected to be used for?
> 
> i.e. -- usually, academic papers have a collection of citiations to
> acknowledge where you got an idea, or fact, or  It serves both to
> jusstify something and make it clear that it is not your own idea (i.e. not
> pagerism).

[
> That is about reproducible results, which is really a different thing than
> the usual citations.

I don't think it is. I think you are seeing a distinction that is not 
there. If citations were just about acknowledgement, we could say "I got 
this idea from Bob" and be done with it. Citations are about identifying 
the *exact* source so that anyone can reproduce the given ideas by 
checking not just "Bob" but the specific page number of a specific 
edition of a specific work.

So the requirement for precision is no different between papers and 
software, and the academic standards for citing software already take 
that into account. There are challenges with software, to be sure -- 
code is much more ephemeral, there may be literally hundreds of 
authors, etc. But in principle, the kinds of information needed to 
cite a software package is known. The major citation styles already 
include this. When you are using a specific style, this page:

https://openresearchsoftware.metajnl.com/about/

suggests a few formats, depending on how you got access to the software.

The bottom line is, we don't have to guess what information to provide. 
People like Jacqueline can tell us what they need, and we'll just fill 
in the values.

The people citing Python know what information they need, we just have 
to help them get it. I think that the best way to do that is to provide 
the correct information in a single place, in a single, standard format, 
and let them choose the appropriate citation style for their 
publication.

Jackie, do I have that right?



-- 
Steve
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python

[Chris Barker via Python-Dev]

I"d like ot know what thee citations are expected to be used for?

i.e. -- usually, academic papers have a collection of citiations to
acknowledge where you got an idea, or fact, or  It serves both to
jusstify something and make it clear that it is not your own idea (i.e. not
pagerism).

in the enclosed doc, it says:

"""
*If someone publishes research, they will cite the exact major version that
was used, so if someone was trying to recreate the research they would be
able to do it.*
*"""*
That is about reproducible results, which is really a different thing than
the usual citations. In that case, you would want some way to identify the
actual source code (cPython version 3.6.4, and probably a url to the source
-- but how long might that last???) And you would need to post your own
source anyway.

Again, regular citation is about acknowledging the source of an idea or
fact, or something of that nature. I can imagine a paper about computer
language design or some such might need to reference Python -- in which
case it should reference the Language Reference, I suppose. Maybe we should
have a DOI for each version of the standard docs.

But "I wrote some code in Python to produce these statistics" -- does that
need a citation? If so, maybe that would take a different form.

Anyway, hard to make this decision without some idea how the citation is
intended to be used.

-CHB




On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 9:51 AM, Gerald Klix  wrote:

> Wouldn't it make sense to ask the developers of the other Python
> implementations too?
>
> Just my 0.02€,
>
>
> Gerald
>
>
>
> Am 09.09.2018 um 21:43 schrieb Jacqueline Kazil:
>
>> The PSF has received a few inquiries asking the question — “How do I cite
>> Python?”So, I am reaching out to you all to figure this out.
>>
>> (For those that don’t know my background, I have been in academia for a
>> bit
>> as a Ph.D student and have worked at the Library of Congress writing code
>> to process Marc records , among
>> other things.)
>>
>> IMHO the citation for Python should be decided upon by the Python
>> developers and should live somewhere on the site.
>>
>> Two questions to be answered…
>>
>> 1. What format should it take?
>> 2. Where does it live on the site?
>>
>> To help frame the first one, I quickly wrote this up —
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R0mo8EYVIPNkmNBImpcZTbk0
>> e78T2oU71ioX5NvVTvY/edit#
>>
>> tldr; Summary of possibilities…
>>
>> 1. Article for one citation (1 DOI, generated by the publication)
>> 2. No article (many DOIs — one for each major version through Zenodo
>>  (or similar service))
>>
>> Discuss.
>>
>> -Jackie
>>
>> Jackie Kazil
>> Board of Directors, PSF
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Python-Dev mailing list
>> Python-Dev@python.org
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
>> Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/python.
>> 00%40klix.ch
>>
>
> ___
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/chris.
> barker%40noaa.gov
>



-- 

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR(206) 526-6959   voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
Seattle, WA  98115   (206) 526-6317   main reception

chris.bar...@noaa.gov
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python

[Brett Cannon]

On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 at 20:55 Terry Reedy  wrote:

> On 9/9/2018 11:39 PM, Jacqueline Kazil wrote:
> > Terry -- For clarification, the format question was not a style
> > question. It was a reference to the one versus many that I wrote in the
> > explainer.
>
> I don't know what you mean by this.
>
> > Yes... there are many prescribed formats already. That is the easy part.
>
> Different publications use different citation formats.  We cannot
> dictate which format an author or publication uses.  We could, and I
> think should, suggest the content of the different fields that go into
> the various formats.  And we could give examples of citing, say, the
> Reference Manual, in the most common formats.
>

What we can suggest, though, is what the information should be and that's
what Jackie is initially asking about, i.e. do we want a single reference
for the language that is version-agnostic or one for each Python release?

My vote is a single reference and leave it up to the person referencing to
clarify the version they are using. Seems the simplest to maintain
long-term.

-Brett


>
> > On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 11:33 PM Terry Reedy  > > wrote:
> >
> > On 9/9/2018 3:43 PM, Jacqueline Kazil wrote:
> >  > The PSF has received a few inquiries asking the
> question —
> >  > “How do I cite Python?”So, I am reaching out to you all to figure
> > this out.
> >  >
> >  > (For those that don’t know my background, I have been in academia
> > for a
> >  > bit as a Ph.D student and have worked at the Library of Congress
> > writing
> >  > code to process Marc records
> > ,
> >  > among other things.)
> >  >
> >  > IMHO the citation for Python should be decided upon by the Python
> >  > developers and should live somewhere on the site.
>
> The PSF is the publisher.  It seems that you might be more competent to
> make some of the decisions than are we developers, who have mostly left
> academia some time ago.
>
> >  > Two questions to be answered…
> >  >
> >  >  1. What format should it take?
> >
> > There are by now formats for citing web documents.  I presume style
> > guides now include such.  Try a current version of the Chicago
> > Manual of
> > Style.  (not sure of exact title).  I will ask a university professor
> > who should know more than I.
> >
> >  >  2. Where does it live on the site?
> >
> > On https://bugs.python.org/issue26597, I suggested the Copyright
> page.
>
> To make the answer more visible,
>
> > I now think a link to 'Citing these Documents' on
> > https://docs.python.org/3/
> > would be even better.
>
> tjr
>
> ___
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/brett%40python.org
>
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python

[Gerald Klix]

Wouldn't it make sense to ask the developers of the other Python 
implementations too?


Just my 0.02€,


Gerald



Am 09.09.2018 um 21:43 schrieb Jacqueline Kazil:

The PSF has received a few inquiries asking the question — “How do I cite
Python?”So, I am reaching out to you all to figure this out.

(For those that don’t know my background, I have been in academia for a bit
as a Ph.D student and have worked at the Library of Congress writing code
to process Marc records , among
other things.)

IMHO the citation for Python should be decided upon by the Python
developers and should live somewhere on the site.

Two questions to be answered…

1. What format should it take?
2. Where does it live on the site?

To help frame the first one, I quickly wrote this up —
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R0mo8EYVIPNkmNBImpcZTbk0e78T2oU71ioX5NvVTvY/edit#

tldr; Summary of possibilities…

1. Article for one citation (1 DOI, generated by the publication)
2. No article (many DOIs — one for each major version through Zenodo
 (or similar service))

Discuss.

-Jackie

Jackie Kazil
Board of Directors, PSF



___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/python.00%40klix.ch


___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python

[Terry Reedy]

On 9/9/2018 11:39 PM, Jacqueline Kazil wrote:
Terry -- For clarification, the format question was not a style 
question. It was a reference to the one versus many that I wrote in the 
explainer.


I don't know what you mean by this.


Yes... there are many prescribed formats already. That is the easy part.


Different publications use different citation formats.  We cannot 
dictate which format an author or publication uses.  We could, and I 
think should, suggest the content of the different fields that go into 
the various formats.  And we could give examples of citing, say, the 
Reference Manual, in the most common formats.


On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 11:33 PM Terry Reedy > wrote:


On 9/9/2018 3:43 PM, Jacqueline Kazil wrote:
 > The PSF has received a few inquiries asking the question —
 > “How do I cite Python?”So, I am reaching out to you all to figure
this out.
 >
 > (For those that don’t know my background, I have been in academia
for a
 > bit as a Ph.D student and have worked at the Library of Congress
writing
 > code to process Marc records
,
 > among other things.)
 >
 > IMHO the citation for Python should be decided upon by the Python
 > developers and should live somewhere on the site.


The PSF is the publisher.  It seems that you might be more competent to 
make some of the decisions than are we developers, who have mostly left 
academia some time ago.



 > Two questions to be answered…
 >
 >  1. What format should it take?

There are by now formats for citing web documents.  I presume style
guides now include such.  Try a current version of the Chicago
Manual of
Style.  (not sure of exact title).  I will ask a university professor
who should know more than I.

 >  2. Where does it live on the site?

On https://bugs.python.org/issue26597, I suggested the Copyright page.


To make the answer more visible,


I now think a link to 'Citing these Documents' on
https://docs.python.org/3/
would be even better.


tjr

___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python

[Jacqueline Kazil]

Terry -- For clarification, the format question was not a style question.
It was a reference to the one versus many that I wrote in the explainer.
Yes... there are many prescribed formats already. That is the easy part.

-Jackie

On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 11:33 PM Terry Reedy  wrote:

> On 9/9/2018 3:43 PM, Jacqueline Kazil wrote:
> > The PSF has received a few inquiries asking the question —
> > “How do I cite Python?”So, I am reaching out to you all to figure this
> out.
> >
> > (For those that don’t know my background, I have been in academia for a
> > bit as a Ph.D student and have worked at the Library of Congress writing
> > code to process Marc records ,
> > among other things.)
> >
> > IMHO the citation for Python should be decided upon by the Python
> > developers and should live somewhere on the site.
> >
> > Two questions to be answered…
> >
> >  1. What format should it take?
>
> There are by now formats for citing web documents.  I presume style
> guides now include such.  Try a current version of the Chicago Manual of
> Style.  (not sure of exact title).  I will ask a university professor
> who should know more than I.
>
> >  2. Where does it live on the site?
>
> On https://bugs.python.org/issue26597, I suggested the Copyright page.
> I now think a link to 'Citing these Documents' on
> https://docs.python.org/3/
> would be even better.
>
> --
> Terry Jan Reedy
>
>
> ___
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/jackiekazil%40gmail.com
>


-- 
Jacqueline Kazil | @jackiekazil
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python

[Terry Reedy]

On 9/9/2018 3:43 PM, Jacqueline Kazil wrote:
The PSF has received a few inquiries asking the question — 
“How do I cite Python?”So, I am reaching out to you all to figure this out.


(For those that don’t know my background, I have been in academia for a 
bit as a Ph.D student and have worked at the Library of Congress writing 
code to process Marc records , 
among other things.)


IMHO the citation for Python should be decided upon by the Python 
developers and should live somewhere on the site.


Two questions to be answered…

 1. What format should it take?


There are by now formats for citing web documents.  I presume style 
guides now include such.  Try a current version of the Chicago Manual of 
Style.  (not sure of exact title).  I will ask a university professor 
who should know more than I.



 2. Where does it live on the site?


On https://bugs.python.org/issue26597, I suggested the Copyright page. 
I now think a link to 'Citing these Documents' on https://docs.python.org/3/

would be even better.

--
Terry Jan Reedy


___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python

[Wes Turner]

"Python Programming Language" (van Rossum, et. Al) 

?

Should there be a URL and/or a DOI?

Figshare and Zenodo will archive a [e.g. tagged] [GitHub] revision and
generate a DOI, AFAIU


On Sunday, September 9, 2018, Steven D'Aprano  wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 09, 2018 at 03:43:13PM -0400, Jacqueline Kazil wrote:
> > The PSF has received a few inquiries asking the question — “How do I cite
> > Python?”So, I am reaching out to you all to figure this out.
>
> If you figure it out, it would be lovely to see some movement on this
> ticket:
>
> https://bugs.python.org/issue26597
>
>
> --
> Steve
> ___
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/
> wes.turner%40gmail.com
>
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Sun, Sep 09, 2018 at 03:43:13PM -0400, Jacqueline Kazil wrote:
> The PSF has received a few inquiries asking the question — “How do I cite
> Python?”So, I am reaching out to you all to figure this out.

If you figure it out, it would be lovely to see some movement on this 
ticket:

https://bugs.python.org/issue26597


-- 
Steve
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Official citation for Python

[Eric Snow]

On Sun, Sep 9, 2018, 14:19 Jacqueline Kazil  wrote:

> The PSF has received a few inquiries asking the question — “How do I cite
> Python?”So, I am reaching out to you all to figure this out.
>
> (For those that don’t know my background, I have been in academia for a
> bit as a Ph.D student and have worked at the Library of Congress writing
> code to process Marc records ,
> among other things.)
>
> IMHO the citation for Python should be decided upon by the Python
> developers and should live somewhere on the site.
>
> Two questions to be answered…
>
>1. What format should it take?
>2. Where does it live on the site?
>
> To help frame the first one, I quickly wrote this up —
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R0mo8EYVIPNkmNBImpcZTbk0e78T2oU71ioX5NvVTvY/edit#
>
> tldr; Summary of possibilities…
>
>1. Article for one citation (1 DOI, generated by the publication)
>2. No article (many DOIs — one for each major version through Zenodo
> (or similar service))
>
> Discuss.
>

Hi Jackie!

FWIW, this has come up a few times in the past on python-ideas and/or
python-dev.  Sorry I don't have more info.  Alas, if I were at my computer
I could offer specifics. :)

-eric
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com