On 6/26/07, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On the publication list for SAGE (http://sagemath.org/pub.html), it says
> to cite SAGE as:
>
> SAGE Mathematics Software, Version 2.6, http://www.sagemath.org/
>
> Can we put up an official Bibtex version of this? Is the following
> sufficient?
Yes, I like that.
> @misc{sage,
> Title = {{SAGE} Mathematics Software, Version 2.6},
> Note = {\url{http://www.sagemath.org/}}}
>
>
>
> In the past, it seems that the preferred citation was the following
> paper. Is it not the preferred way of citing SAGE anymore?
Yes. I used the citation below for a while, since John Cannon once
told me that with MAGMA they always reference the same paper --
the first to mention MAGMA -- so it has a high citation count. In
retrospect, I think that is stupid -- it's confusing, out of date,
and the URL is wrong. Also, it doesn't make the version of the
software used crystal clear. I think the critical properties that a
citation for SAGE should have are:
(0) a simple clear statement of what SAGE is: "mathematical software"
(1) the URL http://www.sagemath.org,
since I own that and it will always point toward SAGE, wherever
I may go.
(2) the version of SAGE used
(3) what SAGE is, namely software.
(4) I don't require that people list *me* personally -- I think it is much
more important to track down the main parts of SAGE that your work
depends on, and thank the authors of those packages, especially in
the text.
I was once told by the *author* of bibtex (who I met at a SAGE talk
once) that one should use the note field and \url for referencing
url's, as you do above.
I don't like the below anymore, since
(1) It suggests that SAGE was written by David Joyner and I only.
(2) It suggests the paper is directly at http://www.sagemath.org, which
is false (it's in a subdirectory)
(3) The paper cited is in fact very out of date -- it was written a few
months after SAGE-0.1 (!)
By the way, I'm generally phasing out the acronym SAGE = ("Software
for Algebra and Geometry Experimentation") since SAGE is much more
than that now. E.g., the next release of SAGE will include scipy, which
is for serious numerical computation.
What do people think? It's a good idea to have a clear bibtex reference
that everybody sticks with as soon as possible, and I'm open to suggestions
and feedback regarding the above points.
-- William
> @article{sage,
> author = {Stein, William and Joyner, David},
> title = {{SAGE}: System for Algebra and Geometry Experimentation},
> journal= {Communications in Computer Algebra (SIGSAM Bulletin)},
> year = {July 2005},
> note = {{\tt http://www.sagemath.org}.}
> }
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
>
> >
>
--
William Stein
Associate Professor of Mathematics
University of Washington
http://www.williamstein.org
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URLs: http://sage.math.washington.edu/sage/ and http://sage.scipy.org/sage/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
