Re: should a BIBLIOGRAPHY keyword supercede org-cite-global-bibliography?
As Emmenuel pointed out, we missed that Nicolas already thought of this, and you can do this: #+org-cite-global-bibliography: nil With that, there's no problem, and lots of flexibility. On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 8:53 PM Thomas S. Dye wrote: > > I used to have a global bibliography that my employees all used. > Every project also had a local bibliography for citations that > didn't appear in the global bibliography. At the end of a > project, after the editor had cleaned up the local bibliography, > I'd merge it with the global bibliography using a utility called > bibtool. > > hth, > Tom > > Vikas Rawal writes: > > >> It seems like that should not be the case, i.e. if you define > >> BIBLIOGRAPHY > >> keywords it means you do not want to use the ones > >> in org-cite-global-bibliography. Is there a scenario where the > >> union of those > >> makes sense? > > > > I second this. The local bibliographies should supercede the > > global. > > > > Vikas > > > -- > Thomas S. Dye > https://tsdye.online/tsdye >
Re: should a BIBLIOGRAPHY keyword supercede org-cite-global-bibliography?
I used to have a global bibliography that my employees all used. Every project also had a local bibliography for citations that didn't appear in the global bibliography. At the end of a project, after the editor had cleaned up the local bibliography, I'd merge it with the global bibliography using a utility called bibtool. hth, Tom Vikas Rawal writes: It seems like that should not be the case, i.e. if you define BIBLIOGRAPHY keywords it means you do not want to use the ones in org-cite-global-bibliography. Is there a scenario where the union of those makes sense? I second this. The local bibliographies should supercede the global. Vikas -- Thomas S. Dye https://tsdye.online/tsdye
Re: org-cite: how to include a cite with no key?
On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 7:28 PM Emmanuel Charpentier <
emm.charpent...@free.fr> wrote:
> > In natbib there is \citetext{priv.\ comm.} which is used to add a
> > textual citation to the bibliography that doesn't have a key
> > associated with it.
>
> Hmmm... why should you bother to reference a personal communication ?
> Such private communications may be mentionned in the text (possibly by
> a footnote) but can't be properly referenced (since there is nothing to
> refer to). If you feel that this communication must be referred to, you
> should give it some (written) support and (properly) reference this
> support.
>
Who is to say why someone would bother. It is a command on page two of
http://tug.ctan.org/macros/latex/contrib/natbib/natnotes.pdf that one can
use.
It is also possible to use \nocite{*} as a cite, which includes all
references from a bibliography, and yet contains no key. Even funnier in a
way is \nocite{key} which just adds entries to the bibliography, but does
not cite them in the body of a document.
Footnotes are not always allowed in publications, and for various reasons
not worth defending, in proposals one might want to put this in the
references because of space limitations.
I count at least 10 examples of such personal communications in the
references in my library of ~1800 pdfs, so they aren't very common, but
certainly they exist in the wild. Whether people should do it or not, they
do.
>
> ISTR that at least CSL and BibLaTeX have types appropriates for a
> manuscript or a letter. You may also consider your own notes as
> documents and reference them (properly).
>
> > I don't see a way to get something like that in org-cite, since it
> > seems that a key is always required.
>
> Indeed : the key is, in relational algebra terms, the primary key of
> the bibliographic relation...
>
I think of it more like a lambda function, but for a cite reference, where
you
define what you want inline. It is pretty common in scientific papers
and proposals to see that.
It may not make sense to make an @misc bibtex entry for that purpose, since
it is a one time citation for that document, and is like a lambda reference.
> > This isn't currently recognized as a cite, but something like this
> > seems like a reasonable solution to me.
>
> > [cite/text:@ private communication]
>
> Such special casing is probably a bugs' nest... err.. hive. And
> pointless, as explained /supra/.
> HTH,
>
> --
> Emmanuel Charpentier
>
> > John
>
>
Re: should a BIBLIOGRAPHY keyword supercede org-cite-global-bibliography?
> It seems like that should not be the case, i.e. if you define BIBLIOGRAPHY > keywords it means you do not want to use the ones > in org-cite-global-bibliography. Is there a scenario where the union of those > makes sense? I second this. The local bibliographies should supercede the global. Vikas
org-cite: how to include a cite with no key?
> In natbib there is \citetext{priv.\ comm.} which is used to add a
> textual citation to the bibliography that doesn't have a key
> associated with it.
Hmmm... why should you bother to reference a personal communication ?
Such private communications may be mentionned in the text (possibly by
a footnote) but can't be properly referenced (since there is nothing to
refer to). If you feel that this communication must be referred to, you
should give it some (written) support and (properly) reference this
support.
ISTR that at least CSL and BibLaTeX have types appropriates for a
manuscript or a letter. You may also consider your own notes as
documents and reference them (properly).
> I don't see a way to get something like that in org-cite, since it
> seems that a key is always required.
Indeed : the key is, in relational algebra terms, the primary key of
the bibliographic relation...
> This isn't currently recognized as a cite, but something like this
> seems like a reasonable solution to me.
> [cite/text:@ private communication]
Such special casing is probably a bugs' nest... err.. hive. And
pointless, as explained /supra/.
HTH,
--
Emmanuel Charpentier
> John
Re: should a BIBLIOGRAPHY keyword supercede org-cite-global-bibliography?
Le lundi 19 juillet 2021 à 13:54 -0400, John Kitchin a écrit :
> That doesn't seem consistent with other ways that file-local keywords
> are used though, and it would lead (for me anyway) to citing
> unintended
> references (and including unintended bib files in the export) if
> there is
> only one bibliography file that should be used for a document.
You mean you want to do something like \nocite{*} ?
>
> Maybe a reasonable compromise is something like
>
> #+bibliography: :local t
>
> which could indicate not to use the global variable.
No need :
# Local Variables:
# org-cite-global-bibliography: nil
# End:
>
>
>
> Bruce D'Arcus writes:
>
> > Yes, you're right Emmanuel.
> >
> > I guess this goes back to my file type/extension issue then.
> >
> > I do expect this to be a non-issue in time though, as related
> > packages
> > update to fully support all three common input formats.
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 1:29 PM CHARPENTIER Emmanuel
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > It seems like that should not be the case, i.e. if you define
> > > > BIBLIOGRAPHY keywords it means you do not want to use the ones
> > > > in
> > > > org-cite-global-bibliography. Is there a scenario where the
> > > > union of
> > > > those makes sense?
> > >
> > > Yes indeed: you may have
> > > - A library for background issues (e. g. methodology)
> > > - A (or several) subject matter-specific library (e. g. a
> > > subdiscipline, a method, etc...)
> > > - A library specific to the question you are discussing (e. g.
> > > results of a bibliographic search specific to your question).
> > >
> > > The first one is a perfect target for org-cite-global-
> > > bibliography. The
> > > last one is of course a target for #+BIBLIOGRAPHY ; I'd tend to
> > > let the
> > > subject matter library as a file-specific #+BIBLIOGRAPHY (my
> > > subject
> > > matters tend to vary...), but this depends on your field.
> > >
> > > You may also think of this typology as books, reviews and
> > > research
> > > papers respectively...
> > >
> > > HTH,
> > >
> > > --
> > > Emmanuel Charpentier
> > >
>
>
> --
> Professor John Kitchin
> Doherty Hall A207F
> Department of Chemical Engineering
> Carnegie Mellon University
> Pittsburgh, PA 15213
> 412-268-7803
> @johnkitchin
> http://kitchingroup.cheme.cmu.edu
> Pronouns: he/him/his
Re: should a BIBLIOGRAPHY keyword supercede org-cite-global-bibliography?
On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 1:54 PM John Kitchin wrote: > Maybe a reasonable compromise is something like > > #+bibliography: :local t > > which could indicate not to use the global variable. I like it! Bruce
Re: should a BIBLIOGRAPHY keyword supercede org-cite-global-bibliography?
That doesn't seem consistent with other ways that file-local keywords are used though, and it would lead (for me anyway) to citing unintended references (and including unintended bib files in the export) if there is only one bibliography file that should be used for a document. Maybe a reasonable compromise is something like #+bibliography: :local t which could indicate not to use the global variable. Bruce D'Arcus writes: > Yes, you're right Emmanuel. > > I guess this goes back to my file type/extension issue then. > > I do expect this to be a non-issue in time though, as related packages > update to fully support all three common input formats. > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 1:29 PM CHARPENTIER Emmanuel > wrote: >> >> > It seems like that should not be the case, i.e. if you define >> > BIBLIOGRAPHY keywords it means you do not want to use the ones in >> > org-cite-global-bibliography. Is there a scenario where the union of >> > those makes sense? >> >> Yes indeed: you may have >> - A library for background issues (e. g. methodology) >> - A (or several) subject matter-specific library (e. g. a >> subdiscipline, a method, etc...) >> - A library specific to the question you are discussing (e. g. >> results of a bibliographic search specific to your question). >> >> The first one is a perfect target for org-cite-global-bibliography. The >> last one is of course a target for #+BIBLIOGRAPHY ; I'd tend to let the >> subject matter library as a file-specific #+BIBLIOGRAPHY (my subject >> matters tend to vary...), but this depends on your field. >> >> You may also think of this typology as books, reviews and research >> papers respectively... >> >> HTH, >> >> -- >> Emmanuel Charpentier >> -- Professor John Kitchin Doherty Hall A207F Department of Chemical Engineering Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 412-268-7803 @johnkitchin http://kitchingroup.cheme.cmu.edu Pronouns: he/him/his
Re: should a BIBLIOGRAPHY keyword supercede org-cite-global-bibliography?
Yes, you're right Emmanuel. I guess this goes back to my file type/extension issue then. I do expect this to be a non-issue in time though, as related packages update to fully support all three common input formats. On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 1:29 PM CHARPENTIER Emmanuel wrote: > > > It seems like that should not be the case, i.e. if you define > > BIBLIOGRAPHY keywords it means you do not want to use the ones in > > org-cite-global-bibliography. Is there a scenario where the union of > > those makes sense? > > Yes indeed: you may have > - A library for background issues (e. g. methodology) > - A (or several) subject matter-specific library (e. g. a > subdiscipline, a method, etc...) > - A library specific to the question you are discussing (e. g. > results of a bibliographic search specific to your question). > > The first one is a perfect target for org-cite-global-bibliography. The > last one is of course a target for #+BIBLIOGRAPHY ; I'd tend to let the > subject matter library as a file-specific #+BIBLIOGRAPHY (my subject > matters tend to vary...), but this depends on your field. > > You may also think of this typology as books, reviews and research > papers respectively... > > HTH, > > -- > Emmanuel Charpentier >
should a BIBLIOGRAPHY keyword supercede org-cite-global-bibliography?
> It seems like that should not be the case, i.e. if you define > BIBLIOGRAPHY keywords it means you do not want to use the ones in > org-cite-global-bibliography. Is there a scenario where the union of > those makes sense? Yes indeed: you may have - A library for background issues (e. g. methodology) - A (or several) subject matter-specific library (e. g. a subdiscipline, a method, etc...) - A library specific to the question you are discussing (e. g. results of a bibliographic search specific to your question). The first one is a perfect target for org-cite-global-bibliography. The last one is of course a target for #+BIBLIOGRAPHY ; I'd tend to let the subject matter library as a file-specific #+BIBLIOGRAPHY (my subject matters tend to vary...), but this depends on your field. You may also think of this typology as books, reviews and research papers respectively... HTH, -- Emmanuel Charpentier
org-cite: how to include a cite with no key?
In natbib there is \citetext{priv.\ comm.} which is used to add a textual
citation to the bibliography that doesn't have a key associated with it.
I don't see a way to get something like that in org-cite, since it seems
that a key is always required.
This isn't currently recognized as a cite, but something like this seems
like a reasonable solution to me.
[cite/text:@ private communication]
John
---
Professor John Kitchin (he/him/his)
Doherty Hall A207F
Department of Chemical Engineering
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
412-268-7803
@johnkitchin
http://kitchingroup.cheme.cmu.edu
Re: should a BIBLIOGRAPHY keyword supercede org-cite-global-bibliography?
I was wondering about this the other day too, and am not sure. It can actually be a problem, and has been for me, if you're mixing export processors; like biblatex, and CSL (which is best to use with json currently). So I definitely see a downside currently, and can't think of a problem in changing this. If someone else can, maybe it should be configurable? Along these lines, it might be nice if we could choose which global file(s) or extensions for which processor. On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 12:07 PM John Kitchin wrote: > > The org-cite-list-bibliography-files function in oc.el returns a combination > of file-local files and the bibfiles defined in org-cite-global-bibliography. > > It seems like that should not be the case, i.e. if you define BIBLIOGRAPHY > keywords it means you do not want to use the ones in > org-cite-global-bibliography. Is there a scenario where the union of those > makes sense? > > John > > --- > Professor John Kitchin (he/him/his) > Doherty Hall A207F > Department of Chemical Engineering > Carnegie Mellon University > Pittsburgh, PA 15213 > 412-268-7803 > @johnkitchin > http://kitchingroup.cheme.cmu.edu >
should a BIBLIOGRAPHY keyword supercede org-cite-global-bibliography?
The org-cite-list-bibliography-files function in oc.el returns a combination of file-local files and the bibfiles defined in org-cite-global-bibliography. It seems like that should not be the case, i.e. if you define BIBLIOGRAPHY keywords it means you do not want to use the ones in org-cite-global-bibliography. Is there a scenario where the union of those makes sense? John --- Professor John Kitchin (he/him/his) Doherty Hall A207F Department of Chemical Engineering Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 412-268-7803 @johnkitchin http://kitchingroup.cheme.cmu.edu
Re: Comments break up a paragraph when writing one-setence-per-line
On Friday, 16 Jul 2021 at 12:06, William Denton wrote: > People who write one-sentence-per-line, have you had this problem, and if so > how > did you handle it? If I will be exporting to LaTeX, I do the following: --8<---cut here---start->8--- One sentence is here. #+latex: % a sentence that has been commented out. The third sentence is here and should be in the same paragraph as the first. --8<---cut here---end--->8--- The LaTeX directive is a LaTeX comment (% at the start) and so replaces what would otherwise be a blank line causing a new paragraph to start. It may not be pretty but it works just fine. HTH, eric -- : Eric S Fraga via Emacs 28.0.50, Org release_9.4.6-598-g604bfd : Latest paper written in org: https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.05096
Re: Put #+print_bibliography in an org source code block?
> > I don't know if that works, but what about exporting to org? > Exporting to org works. Vikas
Bug: duplicated \texttt in LaTeX export
It seems, something goes wrong with LaTeX export at least in git master
>8
#+PROPERTY: header-args :eval never-export :exports code :results silent
src_elisp{(delete-dups nil)}
8<
Export as LaTeX buffer:
\texttt{\texttt{(delete-dups nil)}}
I see no reason why \texttt should be doubled this case. Expectation: e.g.
\texttt{(delete-dups nil)}
Subject: Bug: Org-Clock-Out in indirect buffer error after refile [9.3 (release_9.3 @ /usr/share/emacs/27.1/lisp/org/)]
Emacs : GNU Emacs 27.1 (build 1, x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 3.24.23, cairo version 1.16.0) of 2021-01-18, modified by Debian Package: Org mode version 9.3 (release_9.3 @ /usr/share/emacs/27.1/lisp/org/) Hi, When I am working in an indirect buffer and am currently clocked into a subheading. If I refile this subheading and then run org-clock-out, I get the error "Clock start time is gone". When not working in an indirect buffer, Org Mode is able to track this subtree and clock out of it, which is the expected behaviour. Thanks in advance. Regards, - Eddie Drury
Re: Put #+print_bibliography in an org source code block?
Am 18.07.2021 um 07:02 schrieb Vikas Rawal: I don't know if this is crazy. But I was wondering if it is possible (or worth exploring as an idea) to turn #+print_bibliography into something that can be evaluated to throw the bibliography as results in the org file itself. This would then allow playing with the bibliography using org, and exporting it to any format. I tried to put #+print_bibliograph in an org source code block, but I guess it would need some way of picking up citations from the document outside the code block. Vikas I don't know if that works, but what about exporting to org? Denis
