Subject:
Re: [dev-biblio] Fwd: previous discussions with Daniel V. on bib
details and moving forward (was Re: namespaces)
From:
"Bruce D'Arcus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:
Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:19:23 -0400
To:
[email protected]
pt wrote:
I thought I had an idea of how it might work with in-text citations
that were essentially tokens referencing a bibliographic data store,
but the psuedo code below seems to imply that the full bibliographic
record would be in the citation. Or am I misreading it?
The plan has been that citations just become pointers to external
bibliographic records; "external" in relation to content.xml, but
still in the file wrapper. So the bibliographic store would be
internal to the file. Otherwise the model is the same as the current
DocBook processing, with the sole difference that the results of the
transformation need to get inserted back into the citation elements.
This is what the glue would do; collect the citations, an use them in
conjunction with the bib data to run the file, and insert the results
back.
That doesn't mean there isn't a general bibliographic database too.
It's just that when one inserts a citation in a document, one is both
adding the pointer, and the bibliographic record.
In the past, we had thought that would be an optional relationship;
that a user could choose to embed, or not. I think that's not a good
idea for a variety of reasons, and that it should be mandatory.
Bruce
So if the embedding is mandatory, how will the user deal with parts of
the database record (such as personal or proprietary comments regarding
a work) that are NOT to go with the document to other people?
Martha
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
