Re: [dev-biblio] clarification on coding needs
Thanks Bruce and David, Re-reading my email I feel a little embarrassed. What it should have read was: Great news. I look forward to having a code workspace where we can work on the bibliographic elements, and welcome anyone, Sun or otherwise, that knows enough about the internals of OOo to help us get to the stage where we can build OOo (and OD) with a great new bibliographic feature set. I don't have `great C++ skills' but with building code in hand and a crowd of people to harrass, I'd have the chance to learn enough to make code that is worth reviewing ;) Cheers, James ps. Do you think that the Sun employees would like to 'de-cloak' and say g'day at some point? Yes, that would have been more welcoming and probably productive. On Nov 20, 2005, at 9:34 AM, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: On Nov 20, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Edward Summers wrote: On Nov 19, 2005, at 1:09 PM, James Howison wrote: Probably I'm crazy. If you're crazy, then so am I. It seems odd to me as well. David sent me his thoughts on explaining some of this. As he's in Australia, I hope he won't mind if I try clear this up a bit by just forwarding his note, with some slight additions. FWIW, we're not the only OOo project to be experiencing some of these challenges. OOo is a huge, complex application, and while it is open source, the people that are paid to understand it in depth work for Sun. Anyway, from David (speaking for both of us of course): James, James you are not crazy. The situation is quite simple. We have been waiting on some Sun people for assistance not because we need to wait for a Sun employee, but because we have not had a volunteer in our project who understood Openoffice internals or its development process well enough to proceed by ourselves. Like any other Open Source project, we could have, at any any stage in the past couple of years, checked out the OpenOffice source code, rebuilt it with bibliographic enhancements, and started using it. There are several reason way this has not happened yet. One reason is simply that we have not been ready as we were designing the bibliographic formating engine and working out the changes necessary. But also we have not had anyone volunteer their time who had the interest, knowledge or skills to actually do development work on OOo internals. We are hoping that by using Sun's experts to set up the workspace and then work with us to understand the details of what needs to be done, we can write up detailed task descriptions that we will be able to attract some skilled C++ programmers to take on some of these programming tasks. David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] configuring grouping
On Monday 21 November 2005 3:05 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: I am still considering the other points but I can make a comment on this. 3) Primary and secondary sources. This is a tricky one, as David has made the argument one would need to assign groups in this case. I am assuming the formatter can have some generic logic to handle this. E.g., primary sources do not have publishers, and are not articles? There is really no way to automaticly separate the primary and secondary sources. This is because the categories Primary and secondary are in relation to the topic. In my History thesis on Early Irish Sagas, the early saga texts were the Primary source to the topic. (Note: these were published texts.) Other peoples commentary on the work were secondary. But if the topic was 'The History of Commentary on the Early Irish Sagas' then much of what was secondary source material in the first paper becomes the primary material for the second paper. Thus topic dependent. For my thesis, if I had been able to read Old Irish and had consulted the original unpublished manuscripts then these would have been the primary sources, not the published translations I did rely on. I have now just realised that this means that not only do users need to be able to specify the groupings for the bibliography (primary and secondary, and any others) but that user needs to be able to specify which group the citation belongs to for each paper! Sorry Bruce this seems to make a bit more difficult. David -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] configuring grouping
On Nov 20, 2005, at 4:47 PM, David Wilson wrote: I have now just realised that this means that not only do users need to be able to specify the groupings for the bibliography (primary and secondary, and any others) but that user needs to be able to specify which group the citation belongs to for each paper! Not following here. Can you explain? Sorry Bruce this seems to make a bit more difficult. Crap! OK, but let's see if we can make this as simple as possible. I have learned through working on citeproc and csl that often one can find simple solutions to what at first seem like difficult problems. On first glance, you are telling me that we must force users to assign each citation to a group (if they need this sort of formatting at least), and therefore the internal coding must be able to store this (it cannot yet in the OD proposal). I know as a user that I'd rather not have to do that, so perhaps we can figure out some other way. Am not sure how, mind you! If we can't, then I guess my proposed solution would be similar; we'd just need to add a group attribute to the citation coding. Bruce - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] configuring grouping
On Monday 21 November 2005 9:03 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: On Nov 20, 2005, at 4:47 PM, David Wilson wrote: I have now just realised that this means that not only do users need to be able to specify the groupings for the bibliography (primary and secondary, and any others) but that user needs to be able to specify which group the citation belongs to for each paper! Not following here. Can you explain? I have not put this well. I mean not to assign a group at each citation (mention of the work in the document) but for the each work cited in the document. ie. For this document this work is Primary Source (or other group). Sorry Bruce this seems to make a bit more difficult. Crap! OK, but let's see if we can make this as simple as possible. I have learned through working on citeproc and csl that often one can find simple solutions to what at first seem like difficult problems. On first glance, you are telling me that we must force users to assign each citation to a group (if they need this sort of formatting at least), and therefore the internal coding must be able to store this (it cannot yet in the OD proposal). The group belongs to the Cited work not per citation of the work. So the grouping would be stored with the bibliographic detail file in the save files, not in the citation field inserted in the document. I know as a user that I'd rather not have to do that, so perhaps we can figure out some other way. Am not sure how, mind you! Easy, have a default group. For people who do not need sorting this can be a Default (no heading) group. For most of my History papers 80-90% of the cited works were Secondary (so that would the default for me) Then, either when adding cited works or latter when finishing the paper assign the few Primary sources. If we can't, then I guess my proposed solution would be similar; we'd just need to add a group attribute to the citation coding. Bruce - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] configuring grouping
On Nov 20, 2005, at 5:43 PM, David Wilson wrote:
On first glance, you are telling me that we must force users to assign
each citation to a group (if they need this sort of formatting at
least), and therefore the internal coding must be able to store this
(it cannot yet in the OD proposal).
The group belongs to the Cited work not per citation of the work.
So the grouping would be stored with the bibliographic detail file in
the save
files, not in the citation field inserted in the document.
That makes sense. How would the GUI work? Martha, you there? Any
thoughts?
I know as a user that I'd rather
not have to do that, so perhaps we can figure out some other way. Am
not sure how, mind you!
Easy, have a default group. For people who do not need sorting this
can be a
Default (no heading) group. For most of my History papers 80-90% of
the cited
works were Secondary (so that would the default for me) Then, either
when
adding cited works or latter when finishing the paper assign the few
Primary
sources.
FWIW, here's an example of how the latex/bibtex multibib package works:
\usepackage{multibib}
\newcites{bk,art}%
{References from books,%
References from articles}
\bibliographystylebk{alpha}
\bibliographystyleart{plain}
...
\citebk[pp.~23--25]{milne:pooh-corner}
...
\citeart{einstein:1905}
...
\bibliographybk{book-bib}
\bibliographyart{art-bib}
Bruce
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
