[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 68123] Other: Bibliography examples misleading & hard to use

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68123

Heiko Tietze  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||tietze.he...@gmail.com
 Blocks||101258


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101258
[Bug 101258] [META] Revamp the bibliography
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 68123] Other: Bibliography examples misleading hard to use

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68123

--- Comment #7 from Alex Thurgood ipla...@yahoo.co.uk ---
Adding self to CC if not already on

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 68123] Other: Bibliography examples misleading hard to use

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68123

--- Comment #6 from Owen Genat owen.ge...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #5)
 That was not really what I meant. :) I thought that the short name could
 already reflect the citation style -- there is absolutely no need to expose
 a running number in the UI. So, if the short name is only used for a running
 number... we don't want the user to ever see it.

I would not want to see an integer identifier exposed to the user either.
Rather I was thinking of making the Identifier database field, exactly that,
an integer identifier and hiding it from the user. As Bruce indicated,
labelling this field as Short Name on the form is unhelpful. The purpose of
this field appears to be that of a primary key associating the in-text citation
with the bibliography index entry. This works fine for sequence-type citation
systems (e.g., Vancouver), but is no good for author-date systems (e.g., APA,
Chicago), where the in-text citation needs to be (Author, 1987). This
citation information cannot (and should not) be used in the index. Sorry I
wasn't clear about this.

 What I was proposing was to have some sort of pattern language that would
 automatically create references in the correct style as the short name. I.e.
 you would set the correct format once for the in-text citations and once for
 the citations page and LibreOffice would mangle your data to do the right
 thing.

Overall, I think we are in agreement. It really just comes down to how: 

(a) the citation format and bibliography (index) entry format is calculated;
(b) performance issues with doing this calculation, as it is not stored
information.

The main concern I would have is performance in relation to a large
bibliography, for example changing all reference-related entries from APA to
Vancouver style. Each and every citation and bibliography entry needs to be
redone. I imagine Word does it though, so it is likely possible.

 That does not help me. I don't know this Word feature.

It is just a pull down list to select the style manual (APA, Chicago, etc.) to
be used in calculating the format for the citations and bibliography entries.
This is the main determining factor of how both in-text citations and
bibliography entries appear and equates to your statement of you would set the
correct format. Note however that there is only /one/ format, not one for the
citations and one for the bibliography. This is the big red switch, so to
speak.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 68123] Other: Bibliography examples misleading hard to use

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68123

--- Comment #4 from Owen Genat owen.ge...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #3)
 Given all the information that LibreOffice already has from the bibliography
 database, shouldn't it be able to create the short names itself, given
 enough hints on what to create them from? (The hints on the format could be
 something like (%author %year: %page), or to make it a little nicer there
 could be UI to drag-and-drop predefined fields into a text field.)
 If we had that, the short name/identifier field wouldn't actually need to
 exist.

In simple terms, yes. In reality it is more complex. I agree that the basic
citation form (short name) should be dispensed with in favour of a simple
unique identifier, such as an incrementing integer.

The short name field is (currently) the form of the in-text citation. Citation
form is set according to a predefined style (e.g., APA, Chicago, Turabian,
Vancouver, etc.) as indicated in (2) in the description. The form for each
citation is then dependent on various subsidiary factors (according to style
manual), such as: (a) the title/date fields being populated; (b) whether the
citation is the first or subsequent in the text; (c) the number of authors;
just to name a few. The initial implementation would probably need to be a
fairly simple improvement (as you suggest) rather than going to this level of
support.

 2. I am not sure I understand -- do you mean a web database?

This is the example I was referring to:
http://gcflearnfree.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/style.png?w=610

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 68123] Other: Bibliography examples misleading hard to use

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68123

--- Comment #5 from Stefan Knorr (astron) heinzless...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #4)
 In simple terms, yes. In reality it is more complex. I agree that the basic
 citation form (short name) should be dispensed with in favour of a simple
 unique identifier, such as an incrementing integer.

That was not really what I meant. :) I thought that the short name could
already reflect the citation style -- there is absolutely no need to expose a
running number in the UI. So, if the short name is only used for a running
number... we don't want the user to ever see it.

What I was proposing was to have some sort of pattern language that would
automatically create references in the correct style as the short name. I.e.
you would set the correct format once for the in-text citations and once for
the citations page and LibreOffice would mangle your data to do the right
thing.


  2. I am not sure I understand -- do you mean a web database?
 
 This is the example I was referring to:
 http://gcflearnfree.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/style.png?w=610

That does not help me. I don't know this Word feature.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 68123] Other: Bibliography examples misleading hard to use

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68123

--- Comment #3 from Stefan Knorr (astron) heinzless...@gmail.com ---
Hi all,

so, I have never used that part of LibreOffice(I should have, I guess).

Given all the information that LibreOffice already has from the bibliography
database, shouldn't it be able to create the short names itself, given enough
hints on what to create them from? (The hints on the format could be something
like (%author %year: %page), or to make it a little nicer there could be UI to
drag-and-drop predefined fields into a text field.)
If we had that, the short name/identifier field wouldn't actually need to
exist.

then,
1. sounds good.
2. I am not sure I understand -- do you mean a web database?
3. right.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 68123] Other: Bibliography examples misleading hard to use

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68123

--- Comment #2 from Owen Genat owen.ge...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #0)
 The Bibliography tool gives misleading examples, making how to use it
 confusing.
 
 The specific problem is with the Identifier field. In the entry form this
 is called the Short Name. The first problem is that the field needs to be
 named consistently.
 
 The second problem is that the example entries for the field are
 nonsensical. Although you wouldn't know it from the names, the field is
 actually the form that the citation should take within the text -- for
 example, (Smith: 1997) in the APA style. The nonsensical examples should be
 replaced with one that will actually indicate the purpose of the field, such
 as In-Text Citation.

Seems like it would be a good idea to keep the documentation team informed of
any changes made in this respect. I do not know what the standard method of
doing this is, otherwise I would make the change. Is the Documentation ML added
as a CC?

 2.) The ability to chose the database for major citation styles (APA, MLA,
 Chicago). 

There is a point and screenshot, that seems related to this exact issue, noted
for the FOSEM 2014 UX hackfest:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Hackfest/FOSDEM2014#Ideas Thanks are due to
Fabian for pointing this out in bug 73275.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 68123] Other: Bibliography examples misleading hard to use

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68123

tbehr...@suse.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
   Severity|normal  |enhancement
 CC||heinzless...@gmail.com,
   ||tbehr...@suse.com
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #1 from tbehr...@suse.com ---
Makes sense to me, and could even qualify as an easy hack - Astron, any input
from UX side on the proposal?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs