On 2017-08-12 11:28, Rik Kabel wrote:
On 2017-08-12 04:54, Hans Hagen wrote:
On 8/11/2017 8:58 PM, Rik Kabel wrote:
On 2017-08-11 10:01, Alan Braslau wrote:

2) Apple Inc. is not a name so you should not be using author:
organization is more appropriate.

I do not think that this should be the case.

APA and Chicago/Turbanian (and doubtless others) accept association names as author names, and provide rules for handling them.

and as a consequence i bet this is why journals get typeset partly by hand (tweak and cheat on these things) ... and why each publisher then has its own style (with cheats and tricks)

The lack of either an author or an editor is currently flagged in ConTeXt as an error for books and perhaps other bibtex entry types as well. Or do you mean to apply this recommendation to only the electronic type or some other limited subset of types?

Perhaps it is better to use the association name as an author and protect it with a layer of curlies or quotation marks, as {{Apple, Inc.}}, "{Apple, Inc.}", or '{Apple, Inc.}', any one of which will do

one can do that of course (an dit will work) but then someone will come along and say that ...

our recomendation is that one spends some time on a proper database as it pays off

the job and also serve to prevent what would surely be unwanted abbreviation for styles that abbreviate what are parsed as given names.
we really try to get away from fuzzyness ... in fact, the bib format or at least the way it's often used is a structural coding nightmare (and often tex commands are then used to bypass things) .. i think that it never went through a proper 'design, test, review, revise' cycle

reverse engineering what is there + side effects took us quite a while and esp the author bit is a pain (this parsing) ... there have been proposals for alternatives in the past decades (take mlbibtex) but so far we're stuck with historic stuff: making a database in a format that is not that suitable (no nesting) using practices that are counter intuitive and demand lots of obscure magic

(one day Alan will wrap this up in an article)


Alan has stated elsewhere that his intent is to provide first an APA-compliant subsystem, and to add after that support for other regimes. He has also expressed an understandable reluctance to add non-standard fields to bibtex. But it is clearly impossible to provide an APA-compliant system under such a constraint—for example, for some works APA requires an original publication date and bibtex does not support that. It is similarly difficult to see how one can comply with other requirements of APA, such as square brackets around estimated dates for archival sources (how do you identify an estimated date?), constructing shortened titles that are then alphabetized by the first non-significant word, spelling out author names where two or more authors share the same abbreviated names, and so on. Biblatex attempts to address some of these issues with an explosion of new fields, and still, I think, does not succeed. CSL may do a better job on some of these, but again, I do not think that the type of organic standards set forth by APA and others are fully amenable to any automated parsing. This is why I suggested to Alan (off-line) that we need a mechanism to override the generated citation and bibliography/reference list entries with customized versions (\citeas, or additional fields for \cite).

Clearly bibtex is not compatible with the requirements of current documentation standards. Those who require compliant citation to whatever standard with which they are burdened need a better database, support for conversion from bibtex, and a mechanism to override whatever automated result is produced. Of these, the last is most crucial.

As to the specific issue of association names as author names: Why is widening the definition of the author name field using an already-supported protection mechanism worse than overloading the use of the organization field, which is intended denote an affiliation and is not currently supported in the major entry categories?

Sorry, rereading what I wrote, I see that I mistakenly suggested that the btx subsystem does not support origdate. It does, but it is a non-standard extension of bibtex, which was my point.


If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the 

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net

Reply via email to