#3317: a citation system for Sage components
------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
Reporter: mhampton | Owner: mhampton
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-feature
Component: packages | Keywords: citations
Work_issues: | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: | Author:
Merged: | Dependencies:
------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
Comment(by ranosch):
Replying to [comment:8 kcrisman]:
> Hi! If this doesn't slow things down, it is a really good idea,
especially given that Sage is not trying to cover up the other programs
inside of it. I assume that (given the comments on the blog) you will
post timing information in critical areas eventually.
At least that's what I plan to do. I'm not quite sure on how to benchmark
(and what), but I'm open for suggestions. Benchmarking the decorated pass-
function is unsatisfying.
> I have one substantive comment, I think:
> > You'll need our pybtex-spkg in order to make it work:
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/burcin/spkg/pybtex-0.15.spkg
> Hmm, so does that mean we would need to make `pybtex` a standard package
in order for this to work? (Currently there is a probationary period
needed, which we have recently
[http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/11563 been enforcing].)
Well, I put the design, as if pybtex was a standard-spkg. But it might as
well be a good idea to make it optional: If people really pybtex'
features, they can install it. It could be the following: If pybtex is not
installed, the printed citations will just be the exact content of the
bibfile, otherwise parsed (and maybe converted).
But there might be disadvantages: If the bibtex is parsed by pybtex,
syntax-errors and illegal formatting might be found by pybtex. The output
would probably be more consistent (more homogeneous and more compliant to
design).
I am in favour of pre-parsing everything through pybtex, but I don't know,
what is actually better.
> Or are you suggesting this would be an optional spkg (for now), which
means your examples would have to be optional for now?
>
> Here follow a couple silly comments that don't actually review much, but
might still be worthwhile to ponder.
> * Missing "to": `in order make it faster`
Thanks.
> * A ''lot'' of the examples refer to Michael Brickenstein, which seems
somewhat less than advisable. I mean no disrespect here - clearly he is
contributing loads and deserves citations! But for the first-time reader
of this documentation, it would be nice to have a bigger variety of
citations, perhaps even beyond Sage components to the subcomponents. For
instance, the ones in the bibtex patch.
You are right. It is more a coincidence than anything else; still, it has
to be changed.
> * What does [trac-3317-example-usage.patch] exactly have an example of?
I see the `@cites(citable_items.slimgb)` - is this demonstrating that we
get the same thing through the new decorator as we would have from
`sage.misc.citation`? This comment is probably just my ignorance
speaking, feel free to ignore it.
I won't :-).
For this citation system, it is indispensable, that the decorator gets
widespread into sage. In my opinion, it is best if people decorate their
own functions (and possibly make their own bibtex-entries). The example
shows, how a function should be decorated.
(The deprecation-message can be uncommented later, as soon as the "new"
citation system is more accurate than the old one.)
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/3317#comment:10>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.
