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

On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 10:06 AM John Kitchin wrote: > > Bruce and I looked into this UI approach in > https://github.com/jkitchin/org-ref-cite/issues/9. Bruce and I discussed and > worked on this for almost two weeks. There are 70 comments in this issue. > > There are opportunities now to

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

On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 11:27 AM Max Nikulin wrote: > >> Emphasis and bold markers may appear in plain text export. Behavior of > >> styles is > >> not uniform in respect to adding (unbreakable?) space before citation. > > > > Sorry; not following here again. Isn't the space before a

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

On 29/03/2022 23:14, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 11:23 AM Max Nikulin wrote: So it is not more general. Switching CSL style means necessity to update styles in each citations (unless it is possible to specify global or per-cite mapping). Not really. Arguably the most

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

Max Nikulin writes: > On 28/03/2022 20:16, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 8:37 AM Max Nikulin wrote: >>> >>> John, in another message (Sun, 27 Mar 2022 13:00:40 -0400) >>> https://list.orgmode.org/m24k3jnq0k@andrew.cmu.edu you clearly >>> stated a technical limitation that

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

Am 29.03.2022 um 18:14 schrieb Bruce D'Arcus: On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 11:23 AM Max Nikulin wrote: ... You even have managed to convince me that, besides adding missing style names, some existing ones should be adjusted. noauthor/bare for citeyear example makes for me much more sense ...

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

On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 11:23 AM Max Nikulin wrote: ... > >> You even have managed to convince me that, besides adding missing style > >> names, some existing ones should be adjusted. noauthor/bare for citeyear > >> example makes for me much more sense ... > > > > This does need some attention,

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

On 28/03/2022 20:16, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 8:37 AM Max Nikulin wrote: John, in another message (Sun, 27 Mar 2022 13:00:40 -0400) https://list.orgmode.org/m24k3jnq0k@andrew.cmu.edu you clearly stated a technical limitation that is a real reason why org-cite is not an

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

On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 8:37 AM Max Nikulin wrote: > > On 28/03/2022 02:40, John Kitchin wrote: > > Max Nikulin writes: > >> On 21/03/2022 18:51, John Kitchin wrote: > > > > Rather than rehash a lot of experiences, I really encourage you to try > > writing a processor that can support this. Or

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

On 28/03/2022 02:40, John Kitchin wrote: Max Nikulin writes: On 21/03/2022 18:51, John Kitchin wrote: Rather than rehash a lot of experiences, I really encourage you to try writing a processor that can support this. Or even, try modifying org-ref-cite to support it. Not as some thought

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

On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 12:00 PM John Kitchin wrote: > > > Nicolas Goaziou writes: > > > Hello, > > > > Max Nikulin writes: > > > >> Nicolas, concerning a new thread, I have an impression that you are > >> busy with over activities since you are participating in discussions > >> not so

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

On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 3:41 PM John Kitchin wrote: ... > Regarding that org-cite adds an abstraction layer, how else could one > interpret this (from > https://blog.tecosaur.com/tmio/2021-07-31-citations.html#cite-syntax) > other than abstraction: > > [cite/na/b:@key] or

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

Max Nikulin writes: > On 21/03/2022 18:51, John Kitchin wrote: >> citenum and bibentry are the only two I am not sure have a CSL analog. > > I read your messages once more and I should say that I feel some disagreement > of > this one (I removed most of it) and the earlier and longer one from

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

Nicolas Goaziou writes: > Hello, > > John Kitchin writes: > >> I do not think it is productive for the community to say or consider it >> is a sad situation. Many good things have emerged from these >> discussions, even if it is not yet consensus on a solution. It is a >> complex problem,

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

Nicolas Goaziou writes: > Hello, > > Max Nikulin writes: > >> Nicolas, concerning a new thread, I have an impression that you are >> busy with over activities since you are participating in discussions >> not so frequently. So I am unsure at which moment it is appropriate to >> raise such

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

I have updated the readme in org-ref to indicate you can use both > packages. > > Thanks.

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

I have updated the readme in org-ref to indicate you can use both packages. Max Nikulin writes: > On 21/03/2022 18:51, John Kitchin wrote: >> Vikas Rawal writes: >>> >>> From the perspective of a user, this was only meant to express a >>> sentiment that one finds oneself in a situation of

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

On Wednesday, March 23rd, 2022 at 3:39 PM, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > Have you actually looked at the table of existing mappings? See table 1 here > (which it seems we might want to add to the manual?): > > https://blog.tecosaur.com/tmio/2021-07-31-citations.html#cite-syntax Sorry for the late

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

I obviously can't speak for John, but on this: On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 1:11 PM Max Nikulin wrote: > > On 21/03/2022 18:51, John Kitchin wrote: > > > > citenum and bibentry are the only two I am not sure have a CSL analog. As I said in an earlier message, it's no problem to add these. Someone

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

On 21/03/2022 18:51, John Kitchin wrote: citenum and bibentry are the only two I am not sure have a CSL analog. I read your messages once more and I should say that I feel some disagreement of this one (I removed most of it) and the earlier and longer one from Sun, 20 Mar 2022 20:31:29

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

On 24/03/2022 06:04, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: Max Nikulin writes: Nicolas, concerning a new thread, I have an impression that you are busy with over activities since you are participating in discussions not so frequently. So I am unsure at which moment it is appropriate to raise such question

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

On 21/03/2022 18:51, John Kitchin wrote: Vikas Rawal writes: From the perspective of a user, this was only meant to express a sentiment that one finds oneself in a situation of having to choose between two good things, and that we have not been able to find a way to make both compatible with

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

On 22/03/2022 00:00, John Kitchin wrote: "Bruce D'Arcus" writes: Indeed, the question of how to better support cross-references in org is an important one. I don't really use them much, and so am still unsure if this could be addressed with incremental improvements in existing org link

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

I think `fullcite' is OK, although it will be a bit verbose: ┌ │ [cite/fullcite:...] └ Personally, I don’t mind using `full', and so having a duplicate between a style and a variant. But, to be honest, anything is fine with me, as long as it is readily available and documented. Thank

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

Hello, Max Nikulin writes: > Nicolas, concerning a new thread, I have an impression that you are > busy with over activities since you are participating in discussions > not so frequently. So I am unsure at which moment it is appropriate to > raise such question that otherwise may just be

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

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 1:19 PM Max Nikulin wrote: > My point was that it should not be unconsciously ignored. Since the > message was long enough, this particular complain may remain unnoticed. > I can not say that I fully agree with your decision, but I respect it. I > had no intention to

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

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 6:04 PM Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > > Hello, > > "Bruce D'Arcus" writes: > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 5:27 PM Nicolas Goaziou > > wrote: > > >> I can add it, but "full" is already the name of a variant, so > >> [cite/full: ...] and [cite/style/full: ...] would mean

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

Hello, "Bruce D'Arcus" writes: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 5:27 PM Nicolas Goaziou > wrote: >> I can add it, but "full" is already the name of a variant, so >> [cite/full: ...] and [cite/style/full: ...] would mean different things. >> Is this a problem, or do you think of a better style name?

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

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 5:27 PM Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > > Hello, > > Dominik Schrempf writes: > > > (add-to-list ’org-cite-biblatex-styles ’(“full” nil “fullcite” nil nil)) > > > > (This or something similar should be added upstream). > > I can add it, but "full" is already the name of a

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

Hello, Dominik Schrempf writes: > (add-to-list ’org-cite-biblatex-styles ’(“full” nil “fullcite” nil nil)) > > (This or something similar should be added upstream). I can add it, but "full" is already the name of a variant, so [cite/full: ...] and [cite/style/full: ...] would mean different

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

Hello, John Kitchin writes: > I do not think it is productive for the community to say or consider it > is a sad situation. Many good things have emerged from these > discussions, even if it is not yet consensus on a solution. It is a > complex problem, with many years of effort by many people

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

On 23/03/2022 21:39, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: Finding and analyzing existing papers again raises the question of which ones; citation practices look VERY different in chemistry than in art history or sociology. It also raises the question of who will do this work, and whether it's the most

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

On 23/03/2022 06:52, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: Max Nikulin writes: Another point is more serious. Besides citations there are internal cross-references. Org supports them but only in a rudimentary form. Actually cross-references are similar to citations in the sense that they can have style,

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

On Wednesday, 23 Mar 2022 at 10:39, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > Those mappings merely generalize existing systems (bibtex, natbib, > biblatex, csl) used by millions of users (if you include Zotero, > etc.), and already incorporate the feedback of those users. I just want to jump in to say that the new

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

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 8:52 AM Max Nikulin wrote: > > On 23/03/2022 00:20, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 10:42 AM Max Nikulin wrote: > >> > >> John Kitchin, this thread, Sun, 20 Mar 2022 20:31:29 -0400. > >> https://list.orgmode.org/m2sfrc149c@andrew.cmu.edu: > >> > >>> I

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

On 23/03/2022 00:20, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 10:42 AM Max Nikulin wrote: John Kitchin, this thread, Sun, 20 Mar 2022 20:31:29 -0400. https://list.orgmode.org/m2sfrc149c@andrew.cmu.edu: I don't know the equivalent of \citenum in CSL. Right; so John or someone else

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

Hello, Max Nikulin writes: > Nicolas, I think, a part of problem is that you are not an org-cite > user. The packages require some *polishing*, but it have to be > *user-driven*. Just to be clear: the development was _user-driven_ from the start. I read years of discussions about citation,

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

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 10:42 AM Max Nikulin wrote: > > On 21/03/2022 22:19, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 10:41 AM Max Nikulin wrote: > > > >> A bit of routine work will alleviate some user issues: > >> - add missed styles > > > > The initial list of style-command mappings was

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

On 21/03/2022 22:19, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 10:41 AM Max Nikulin wrote: A bit of routine work will alleviate some user issues: - add missed styles The initial list of style-command mappings was pretty comprehensive, but we left out some of the more obscure biblatex

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

Hi Juh, juh writes: > [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]] > Am Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 08:31:29PM -0400 schrieb John Kitchin: >> For those who need high fidelity LaTeX export like I do, I think >> org-ref is still a superior solution. For everyone else, and >> especially if you do not need sophisticated

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

> > > > I don't think you have to choose. You can use org-cite for > citations, and org-ref for cross-references. The citation syntax is > orthogonal, you just should not mix them. That is excellent then. Thanks for clarifications. Best, Vikas

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

"Bruce D'Arcus" writes: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 10:41 AM Max Nikulin wrote: > > ... > >> A bit of routine work will alleviate some user issues: >> - add missed styles > > The initial list of style-command mappings was pretty comprehensive, > but we left out some of the more obscure biblatex

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

Am Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 08:31:29PM -0400 schrieb John Kitchin: > For those who need high fidelity LaTeX export like I do, I think > org-ref is still a superior solution. For everyone else, and > especially if you do not need sophisticated cross-references and don't > want the dependencies of

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

On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 10:41 AM Max Nikulin wrote: ... > A bit of routine work will alleviate some user issues: > - add missed styles The initial list of style-command mappings was pretty comprehensive, but we left out some of the more obscure biblatex commands because unsure if they were

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

Disclaimer: I am neither org-cite no org-ref user. In the past I used LaTeX and BibTeX directly though, and it is a reason why I am reading the discussions. On 20/03/2022 20:19, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: Vikas Rawal writes: This obviously creates many problems including that two people using

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

chris writes: > On Sunday, 20 March 2022 20:44:50 CET Bruce D'Arcus wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 9:42 AM Ihor Radchenko wrote: >> > For citar, why not simply using ivy-bibtex? It supports org-cite, AFAIK. >> >> Not really; or rather minimally. > > I use `org-cite` with a very minimal

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

"Bruce D'Arcus" writes: > On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 9:42 AM Ihor Radchenko wrote: > >> For citar, why not simply using ivy-bibtex? It supports org-cite, AFAIK. > > Not really; or rather minimally. > > Ivy-bibtex supports, for example, inserting of org-cite citations, but > not via

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

Bruce and I looked into this UI approach in https://github.com/jkitchin/org-ref-cite/issues/9. Bruce and I discussed and worked on this for almost two weeks. There are 70 comments in this issue. There are opportunities now to annotate completion targets, which you can see in the link above. The

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

Vikas Rawal writes: > Dear John, > > Thanks very much for taking time to write a detailed reply. > > I do not think it is productive for the community to say or consider it > is a sad situation. > > From the perspective of a user, this was only meant to express a > sentiment that one finds

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

On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 9:13 AM Dominik Schrempf wrote: > > “Bruce D’Arcus” writes: > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 8:41 AM Dominik Schrempf > > wrote: > >> > >> Thank you, I can use `citar-insert-edit` to perform this action. > > > > You can actually just use org-cite-insert, which is context

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

“Bruce D’Arcus” writes: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 8:41 AM Dominik Schrempf > wrote: >> >> Thank you, I can use `citar-insert-edit` to perform this action. > > You can actually just use org-cite-insert, which is context aware. > >> Now, I failed to create a full citation in the text. This

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

On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 8:41 AM Dominik Schrempf wrote: > > Thank you, I can use `citar-insert-edit` to perform this action. You can actually just use org-cite-insert, which is context aware. > Now, I failed to create a full citation in the text. This corresponds to the > `\fullcite{}' command

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

On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 8:23 AM John Kitchin wrote: >> A package could be created, say `org-cite-literal-biblatex' which is just a >> copy >> of `oc-biblatex.el' with a different default `org-cite-biblatex-styles' and >> `org-cite-biblatex-style-shortcuts' (or just sets those variables in >>

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

Thank you, I can use `citar-insert-edit` to perform this action. Now, I failed to create a full citation in the text. This corresponds to the `\fullcite{}' command in LaTeX. Is there an option for this? In summary, it is a bit painful to use `org-cite` compared to using `org-ref`. In my opinion,

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

On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 9:57 PM Timothy wrote: > Hi John, > > Thanks for your considered response. > > When you contrast org-cite and org-ref, you say: > > > With org-ref, bib(la)tex export is almost fully supported, and is easy, > > I find this odd as org-cite supports bib(la)tex export, and

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

On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 4:24 AM Dominik Schrempf wrote: > I am trying out `org-cite' right now. It works much better than the last time > (I > am using the `biblatex' backend right now). However, I can not find any > documentation about the available /styles/. > > They are mentioned here:

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

Hi, I am trying out `org-cite' right now. It works much better than the last time (I am using the `biblatex' backend right now). However, I can not find any documentation about the available /styles/. They are mentioned here: But no styles are

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

Dear John, Thanks very much for taking time to write a detailed reply. I do not think it is productive for the community to say or consider it > is a sad situation. >From the perspective of a user, this was only meant to express a sentiment that one finds oneself in a situation of having to

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

Hi John, Thanks for your considered response. When you contrast org-cite and org-ref, you say: > With org-ref, bib(la)tex export is almost fully supported, and is easy, I find this odd as org-cite supports bib(la)tex export, and rather easily. ┌ │ #+bibliography: references.bib │

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

I do not think it is productive for the community to say or consider it is a sad situation. Many good things have emerged from these discussions, even if it is not yet consensus on a solution. It is a complex problem, with many years of effort by many people on each side. That is an indication of

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

“Bruce D’Arcus” writes: > On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 4:21 PM Dominik Schrempf > wrote: > >> For what it’s worth, I use `org-ref` because fine-grained citation export >> with >> LaTeX (using BibTeX or BibLaTeX) only works with `org-ref`, and not with >> `org-cite`. > > Part of the challenge is

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

On Sunday, 20 March 2022 20:44:50 CET Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 9:42 AM Ihor Radchenko wrote: > > For citar, why not simply using ivy-bibtex? It supports org-cite, AFAIK. > > Not really; or rather minimally. I use `org-cite` with a very minimal configuration, and it works

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

On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 4:21 PM Dominik Schrempf wrote: > For what it’s worth, I use `org-ref` because fine-grained citation export with > LaTeX (using BibTeX or BibLaTeX) only works with `org-ref`, and not with > `org-cite`. Part of the challenge is this isn't an apples-apples comparison;

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

> > > > For what it’s worth, I use `org-ref` because fine-grained citation export > with > LaTeX (using BibTeX or BibLaTeX) only works with `org-ref`, and not with > `org-cite`. > It would help if you can explain what you mean. If I remember correctly, `org-cite` exports the formatted citations

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

“Thomas S. Dye” writes: > Ihor Radchenko writes: > >> Vikas Rawal writes: >> >>> What is the general view of the community about this? Is there a >>> comprehensive discussion of pros and cons of each? >> >> Prof. Kitchin himself provided a summary on why he decided to give up on >> using

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

On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 9:42 AM Ihor Radchenko wrote: > For citar, why not simply using ivy-bibtex? It supports org-cite, AFAIK. Not really; or rather minimally. Ivy-bibtex supports, for example, inserting of org-cite citations, but not via org-cite-insert. So there are currently no org-cite

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

Ihor Radchenko writes: Vikas Rawal writes: What is the general view of the community about this? Is there a comprehensive discussion of pros and cons of each? Prof. Kitchin himself provided a summary on why he decided to give up on using org-cite. See

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

On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 10:08 AM Vikas Rawal wrote: >> >> > What is the general view of the community about this? >> >> I don't know about the general view of the community, but, as a data >> point, I find it very sad. > > > Exactly how I feel. Particularly so because org-cite was indeed inspired

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

> > > What is the general view of the community about this? > > I don't know about the general view of the community, but, as a data > point, I find it very sad. > Exactly how I feel. Particularly so because org-cite was indeed inspired from org-ref and all the great work John has done on this

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

Vikas Rawal writes: > What is the general view of the community about this? Is there a > comprehensive discussion of pros and cons of each? Prof. Kitchin himself provided a summary on why he decided to give up on using org-cite. See https://github.com/jkitchin/org-ref/issues/892 > What is

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

On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 8:09 AM Vikas Rawal wrote: > What is the general view of the community about this? Is there a > comprehensive discussion of pros and cons of each? Not really, but there's John's summary here: https://github.com/jkitchin/org-ref#what-about-org-cite The high-level

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

Hello, Vikas Rawal writes: > This obviously creates many problems including that two people using > different citation systems cannot share org files. Indeed. > > What is the general view of the community about this? I don't know about the general view of the community, but, as a data point,

citations: org-cite vs org-ref 3.0

I am sorry I have not followed the discussions recently. I had happily settled on org-cite but I find that much has changed again. In particular, John Kitchin has given up the work on org-ref-cite and switched back to org-ref. There is a new org-ref version 3.0 which is not compatible with