On Fri, 7-Apr-2006 13:51 -0400, Matt Price wrote: > Or a slightly different strategy: how about angling to modify bibus > to work with the new system? It's the only reference manager that > works with the current system;
On Fri, 7-Apr-2006 14:52 -0400, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > I don't think Bibus has any particular advantage in this case over, > say, RefBase. In fact, RefBase already supports the SRU protocol we'd > like to support, so may be easier to get working with where we want > to go. I think Matt suggested Bibus since it can talk to OOo (i.e., extract citations & insert a formatted bibliography) which refbase currently can't. If I understand things correctly, the process of extracting citations will be handled by the new OOo code internally and not be an external program, is this correct? And the process of formatting references according to a chosen style files will be handled by something like CiteProc, right? So, does that mean that an external database such as refbase is only meant to receive a standard query (such as SRU+CQL) and return matching bibliographic records in a standard format (such as MODS or better RDF)? AFAIK, refbase can still talk to the initial XSLT-processing CiteProc version which requires Java (correct me, Bruce, if I'm somewhere wrong here). That said, does this mean that "only" the OOo code is missing that: - fetches citations from the text and sends these to CiteProc for further processing (a long with a style file specification, etc) - receives a formatted bibliography from CiteProc and incorporates it again into the OOo document Please correct me if I did miss any important steps within the envisioned workflow. Matthias --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
