Re: [dev-biblio] My Introduction

2008-09-27 Thread Bruce D'Arcus
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 12:57 AM, dnw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 The most useful activity you could do at this time would be to work with the
 Zotero team to fix the Zotero plugin/ extension for OpenOffice version 3.

FYI, the Zotero devs have been working on a new version of the plug-in
to cover this. I'd check on their work on that.

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] reminder on Zotero, OOo 3.0

2008-06-28 Thread Bruce D'Arcus
Just a reminder to any developers out their that might want to
contribute to enhancing bibliographic support in OOo, there's still
work to be done by somebody in upgrading Zotero's OOo integration to
support OOo 3.0, including the new Mac port. Am really not even sure
what's involved in doing that.

A longer term goal would be making use of the new (RDF) metadata API
that's coming, though I'm not sure how much of it will be implemented
in the first release.

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] OOo 3.0 and Zotero

2008-06-28 Thread Bruce D'Arcus
Anyone have any ideas about the bug outlined here?

http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/3349/openoffice-30-macro-error/

TIA,
Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] [Fwd: [RFC] RDF metadata API draft]

2008-03-19 Thread Bruce D'Arcus
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Michael Stahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

...

Am *really* not sure about this, but I wonder if it would make sense to
consider the document itself a graph?

  hmmm, interesting idea.
  If I understand the RDF model correctly, then a document would have a
  graph associated, which consists of a set of named graphs (the RDF/XML 
 files).
  So the whole document is a graph, and every single RDF/XML file is a
  subset of the document graph, and _also_ its own named graph.

Yes, except I'm suggesting that the content files also have their own graphs.

  But: we cannot add a RDF statement to the whole document graph, while
  not adding it to any named graph; if we allowed a statement that is not
  part of any named graph, where would we store it in the ODF file
  (especially in a way that is interoperable with other implementations of
  the ODF metadata spec)?

Right.

  So I would claim that it does not make sense to expose in the API a whole
   document graph; you just add your statements to some named graph, and
  they end up in the whole document graph as a side effect.
  The drawback of this approach is that you cannot enumerate the whole
  document graph.

Except as a collection of named graphs, which is fine.

  But you can still query it with SPARQL, and it seems to me that is good
  enough.

  oh, and if you think i have misunderstood something, please tell me!
  i only started reading up on RDF a month ago...


   2) executes a SPARQL SELECT query.
  
   Oooh ... nice! Do I thus assume the endpoint can be arbitrary? E.g. if I
   have an endpoint setup on a relational database somewhere, I can query
   that from the OOo API?

  That was the idea, yes. The XRDFRepository interface can be implemented
  either by an in-memory repository (as would be done for ODF documents), or
  by some database, accessed via HTTP or SQL or whatever.
  However, we want to have one repository per document, and the database
  repository would be distinct as well, so you would not be able to write a
  SPARQL query across document metadata and a database; you would have to
  write two queries.

OK, but I think a single SPARQL query can point to multiple repositories (?).

...

  So, the graph name must be an URI, and it must represent the file name
  somehow.

The URI is a name for a graph, which in the context of ODF, gets
seialized as RDf/XML. In that sense, the file name is rather
orthogonal.

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] call for volunteers: Zotero plug-in

2008-01-05 Thread Bruce D'Arcus
I asked Dan Stillman at the Zotero project if there was anything we
could do here to do to help with development, maintenance, or support
of the Zotero plug-in for OOo. His answer was:

As for maintenance and support, we'd certainly appreciate any
development work from the OOo project in keeping the plugin up to date
with the Word plugin, since we don't currently have any other outside
help on it.

So for those of you with the skills and interest, here's a good
opportunity to help. I don't think it's be that hard to do; just
requires some knowledge of VBA, Python, and OOo extensions I believe.

Things seem to be working fine ATM, but I'm concerned that we keep it that way.

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] Re: [users-biblio] JabRef - OpenOffice integration

2007-12-07 Thread Bruce D'Arcus

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I agree that the bibliographic functionning need not be within 
OpenOffice, 
however just to remind you : Zotero is not the only working example 
out there , Bibus integrates nicely with OO and Word without using 
the OO integrated database.


True enough.

But to be blunt, Zotero is the only working example that I consider 
adequate to the full range of citation practice.


Bibus adopts the very limited BibTeX-based data model of ODF 1.0. This 
already means its limited mostly to the hard sciences. For that reason 
alone, I can't use it.


Zotero, OTOH, supports a fuller data model. It also supports a fuller 
range of citation practices common in the social sciences and humanities 
(and hopefully law):


 - automatic footnoting of note-based references
 - support for ibid.
 - first/subsequent references forms
 - prefix and suffix notes
 - page, line, etc. locators for citations

These kinds of details can impact implementation of course.

But I'd love to see a variety of projects (including Bibus) help us to 
figure out how to move forward and hopefully converge on a generic 
solution for integration. To me the ultimate goal is that different 
users, using different bibliographic applications AND different ODF 
editors (perhaps even Word) can pass around their documents and have the 
citations remain live.


There's a bit of work to do before we can get there of course!

BTW, see Mathias Bauer's recent post no field enhancements coming in OOo 
2.4.


http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS/entry/custom_properties_and_fields

That could be an interim solution before the new text:meta-field from 
ODF 1.2 gets implemented that would give us better functionality and 
interop with Word.


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Re: [users-biblio] JabRef - OpenOffice integration

2007-12-05 Thread Bruce D'Arcus
On Dec 5, 2007 7:55 PM, David Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Currently there are complexities involved with Zotero and other 3rd party
 bibliographic apps in sharing documents and the related bibliographic data,
 which would be greatly reduced with an integrated bibliographic facility.

Well, they'll be solved by an integrated API and standardized ODF
encoding. If JabRef and Zotero, for example, both use the same
mechanism for citation insertion and updating, and embed the same
citation and bib data code in the files, then it achieves that
objective. My point is we need that regardless of whether we build
something on top of it as an integrated tool.

So I'd like to see if we can work with developers from Zotero, JabRef,
etc. to enhance that baseline support. If out that some other
developer start to build the integrated tool we originally envisioned,
that's great. But I don't think we can depend on that panning out. And
in any case, as I say, it's not an either/or choice; just a question
of immediate priorities.

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] Re: [users-biblio] JabRef - OpenOffice integration

2007-12-04 Thread Bruce D'Arcus
On Dec 4, 2007 2:42 PM, Morten Omholt Alver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I have been working on a plugin for integrating JabRef better with
 OpenOffice.org via the UNO interface (to clarify: it's a plugin for
 JabRef - which will support plugins from the next version). It's far
 from finished, but you can at the moment do the basics like inserting
 citations and formatting the bibliography according to a style
 definition. I'd like to try to get the help of some interested users
 with testing and development.

Cool; thanks for the note.

 The plan is for this plugin eventually to be bundled with JabRef, but
 for now, I've made the current version of the plugin available on the
 following address:

 http://www.itk.ntnu.no/ansatte/Alver_Omholt_Morten/jabref/OOPlugin.html

 The source code isn't too comprehensive, so if you're interested in
 helping out, try it out and have a look at the code!

This brings up something I've been thinking about for awhile. I'm not
sure if David or others agree with me on this, but here's my thinking:

The OOo bibliographic project started with the idea to replace the
integrated bibliographic component with something much better, but
still developed within the framework of OOo.

For a variety of reasons, I think this is the wrong way to go. One of
those reasons is that the Zotero project has pretty much done what I'd
hope to achieve with OOoBib:

1) a rich data model and nice UI
2) good import/export
3) use of the CSL citation styling language
4) integration iwith Word and OOo

... and so, finally a good, cross-platform application that is
suitable for a wide range of fields, including the social sciences and
humanities (where traditional tools often fail). I'm currently using
it for an article manuscript.

I'd like to see this project, then, work on enhancing the integration
of tools like Zotero and JabRef with OOo. I'd encourage people, for
example, to get their hands dirty with testing, with trying to offer
support on places like the Zotero forums, and where possible to spend
time figuring out the code so that we can ensure excellent support
long-term, enhancements, and so forth.

I'd ideally like to use this work to converge on an enhanced citation
API in OOo that allows for standardized integration (and encoding in
ODF 1.2)

I'd also like to see other projects pick up CSL, but that's a somewhat
separate issue.

So I'm basically suggesting a shift in focus designed to get stuff
working NOW, and enhance as we go.

Thoughts?

Bruce

PS - Oh, and I think we should urge Sun deprecate the existing
citation and bib support ASAP.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] new endnote x1 support for odt files?

2007-11-03 Thread Bruce D'Arcus

Matt Price wrote:

...


my main interest in broaching the subject is to help my colleagues, who
all use endnote, to move to openoffice.  


Hmm ... I guess that depends.

Do your colleagues express interest in moving away from Word? If yes, 
what kinds of sacrifices are they willing to make to do so?


In the context of Endnote, they will have to give up 
cite-while-you-write functionality.



if indeed matt finds that he
can move his research group to openoffice, that would make a difference.
despite zotero's manifest superiority in many areas, most of my
colleagues are more wedded to endnote than to any other program.  


How do they express the opinion that they are wedded to Endnote? Is it 
something like Matt Y's point that yes, in theory, I could move, but I 
rely on citation styles that Zotero does not support, and I don't have 
the time or skills to create my own? Or is it more like I love Endnote 
and will never consider anything else?


I sympathize with people in the first camp, because while Zotero using 
CSL will pay-off big time longer-term, there's no doubt that we need to 
get over the shorter-term hump of more limited number of styles, and no 
GUI editor.


But that will come.

Also, Zotero now has the same problem Endnote has: it's single user and 
local. This makes it awkward to sync data across machines, or to 
collaborate. It's not eh Zotero is any worse than Endnote on this count; 
it's just not as good as it should/can be.


But Zotero 2.0 is going to kick major ass, offering the ability to 
access your data from different machines, create and collaborate in the 
context of groups, etc., etc. This will go WAY beyond what is possible 
with Endnote.


In short, I'd encourage your colleagues to experiment with Zotero now, 
perhaps simply copying over the reference data they want to Endnote as 
they go. It's easy and free for them to do this, and it they don't have 
to give up Endnote. At a certain point, they will probably switch, when 
they realize it really is a better tool. And when they do that, the 
functionality they get will be a) better than what they get in Endnote 
(since Zotero supports cite-while-you-write-like functionality within 
OOo), and b) compatible with Word (at least that's the goal; that one 
can collaborate on documents between OOo and Word).


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] new endnote x1 support for odt files?

2007-11-02 Thread Bruce D'Arcus

Matt Price wrote:

does anyone know more about this?


...


  * Formatting support for Open Document Type (ODT) files using the
Format Paper command


No, but I'd speculate that the support is something like what you'd get 
with RTF. E.g. not what you'd get with MS Word, or using Zotero with OOo.


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] new endnote x1 support for odt files?

2007-11-02 Thread Bruce D'Arcus
On 11/2/07, Matthew Yates [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

...

 As I said, I think this is great.  My graduate
 students use MS Word and EndNote, while I use
 Openoffice.org on Linux for most things.  Since this
 appears to work (almost) flawlessly in wine, I think I
 may be able to switch my group over to openoffice.org
 and we will all be editing ODT files with no lost
 formatting when exchanging documents back and forth
 between Windows and Linux.

But is there any reason you wouldn't use Zotero?  Particularly when
they roll out the server functionality, it will offer seriously
compelling advantages over Endnote (beyond being free).

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] zotero support

2007-08-16 Thread Bruce D'Arcus

For those interested in using Zotero with OOo, see:

http://www.zotero.org/documentation/word_processor_integration

The goal of the support last I heard (I don't have time to test the 
latest version) is that it not only be equivalent to the MS Word 
support, but that it be possible to round-trip documents between OOo and 
Word. Alas, this is somewhat hampered by the poor support for fields in 
OOo and ODF (which ought to bee rectified with ODF 1.2 and whatever 
version of OOo that fully supports it).


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [Fwd: Re: [dev-biblio] document/collection types]

2007-07-30 Thread Bruce D'Arcus

Matthias Steffens wrote:

My tendency has been to think in terms like libraries think; 
more about the physical form. So a book is always a document, 
whether it includes separate items or not.



Good for me.


I agree that clearly defining the words collection and container
is important. The lack of a clear definition caused quite some
confusion when discussing this stuff at the Zotero forums:


Yeah, I know.

Let's try this. I'm going to try to link this into the FRBR world view.

Document: a written, transcribed, or recorded manifestation of a work 
typically intended to communicate some intellectual or artistic 
information or ideas.


Collection: a collection of documents

By this definition, an edited book or a proceeding both qualify as 
documents because those objects are themselves manifestations. OTOH, I 
think one could say they also qualify as collections because they each 
contain separate documents (unlike, say, an authored book, which only 
contains sub-documents parts like chapters).


We could say, then, that edited books and proceedings are both 
subclasses of a union of Document and Collection. E.g. they are neither 
one nor the other, but both.


Am not sure this actually helps or simply confuses things more!

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Some Considerations for Bibliographic Management

2007-06-16 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Jun 15, 2007, at 7:40 PM, David Wilson wrote:

As I understand them, the current proposals for the OOo Bib Project 
would
allow for the selection of and retention of disparate fonts and font 
sizes

within citation and citation prefixes and suffixes.


We've not settled on the precise modeling of this, but it would 
certainly be possible.


Each of the citation elements author name, title etc, would be in 
formatted text field


No. Each *reference* would get it's own field, and within that one 
might have spans of text that are tagged with styling information. But 
the rendered content of that field would be generated by code; not 
users.



 - that is a
field that would allow any formatting that a text document could have,
including embedded formulas, graphics etc. and would include font 
selection

down to the character level.


Aside from the note above, correct.

...

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] zotero and OOo

2007-05-08 Thread Bruce D'Arcus
An update from the Zotero guys about work (by Ian Laurenson) on 
integrating Zotero with OOo.


http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/804/word-plugin-status-update

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] feedback needed on citation formatting

2007-03-20 Thread Bruce D'Arcus
It seems we're (finally!) about wrapped up with the ODF metadata work  
on which we'll base the new citation support. To make a long story  
short, we've realized that likely the easiest way to proceed with the  
details of formatting is that Writer has an API which knows how to  
track citations, but then requests certain pre-formatted strings as  
needed.


David had outlined his ideas on this earlier here:

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ 
Bibliographic_API_Enhancements#constants_group_BibliographyDataField


I'm wondering about a simpler approach still. I am thinking of  
properties like just citation, shortCitation and bibliographicEntry. In  
that scheme, if we have a citation like (Doe, 1999, 2000; see also  
Smith, 1993):


- ref 1 and 3 are the default citation string
- ref 2 is the short form
	- ref 3 would also be a see also type, and so grouped and prefixed  
in standard ways that could be overridden


So the RDF in package would look like:

b:Book rdf:about=urn:isbn:34982376
  b:citationDoe, 1999/b:citation
  b:shortCitaton1999/b:shortCitaiton
  ...
/b:Book

Any thoughts? Could things be as simple as I am thinking?

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] feedback needed on citation formatting

2007-03-20 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Mar 20, 2007, at 7:12 PM, David Wilson wrote:


A couple of questions come to mind-

1. Locator formatting (page numbers etc). If CiteProc is handling the 
locator
formatting I would guess that intend that the RDF in package would 
look like:


 b:Book rdf:about=urn:isbn:34982376:123-128#An entry for each 
ref/location

b:citationDoe, 1999:123-128/b:citation
b:shortCitaton1999:123-128/b:shortCitaiton
...
 /b:Book

If not and the WP interface handles this then the WP interface needs 
to deal
with the different locator types formats that are style dependent. 
I.E. p,

page, pp, pages, 123-128, or 123-8 etc.


Right. Those are the two options. This is why we need to think of the 
details now, because I might want to propose minor changes to ODF 1.2 
to accommodate this (like, say, locator-separator).


2. With a basic two sting input field suppression like Suppress 
Author, Date
etc. would have be based on a set of assumptions like the Author text 
string
consists of the characters to the first numeric character or the end 
of the
input,  Dates are the first 4 numeric digits following a comma ? This 
could
get complex as we need to cope with all possible styles, multiple 
authors and

different data formats.


I am leaning towards not supporting traditional flags of this sort, 
with the idea that they're more trouble than they're worth, for both 
author and programmer.


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] feedback needed on citation formatting

2007-03-20 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Mar 20, 2007, at 10:19 PM, David Wilson wrote:


I am leaning towards not supporting traditional flags of this sort,
with the idea that they're more trouble than they're worth, for both
author and programmer.

I am not sure what you mean precisely. Do you mean 'by not supporting
traditional flags of this sort' the flags and the functions of 
'Suppress

Author Name' and 'Suppress Date' in the citation.


Yes.

Think about it: why do we have these sorts of commands? It's really a 
way of manually configuring what should (generally) be handled 
automatically. Moreover, I think with a smart citation service, they 
can be.


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] Re: [sw-discussion] Re: zotero and OOo

2007-02-12 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


The dbus vs. uno stuff is beyond me, but ...

On Feb 12, 2007, at 3:54 PM, Mathias Bauer wrote:


Currently we are talking about Zotero. They are using SOAP and this is
fine for both MSOffice and OOo as well. And I don't see a reason that
KOffice can't use it that way. So I would go for it. SOAP is  
absolutely

adequate for the task, it should be usable from all decent RPC layers
and is platform independent. What else do we need?

My suggestion to translate the SOAP API into something more general
was only an idea how we could extend this into something even more
widely usable in OOo.


As I mentioned before, the ZOOM API is an abstract API. It is  
implemented in the open source Index Data library Yaz, which includes  
support for three protocols: z39.50 (an old library standard), and  
the newer SRW (SOAP) and SRU (REST).


This is why we've in general favored using this. If either of you  
find time (or find the illusion of having time!), let me know what  
you think.


http://zoom.z3950.org/api/
http://www.indexdata.dk/yaz/

We have contact with some of the principle authors of the spec and  
the code, so an easy way to have questions answered.


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Fwd: [sw-discussion] Re: [dev-biblio] Re: [sw-discussion] Re: zotero and OOo

2007-02-11 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Feb 10, 2007, at 9:20 PM, David Wilson wrote:

I put together my ideas about possible  Citeproc - Writer Interaction 
at

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Citeproc_Writer_Interaction


I think we might need to pull back and get more abstract to address 
Mathias' question? It seems your diagram is pretty detailed.


So he asked for:

I would like to get a better understanding of the requirements for an 
exchange between WP and bib application.


Do we have that outlined somewhere?

To me, the minimum is, one needs to be able to:

- insert citation (an ID -- ideally a URI -- and source metadata in the 
package)
- chose local rendered style for citation and request rendered string 
be inserted (there will be a default local style, but variations 
depending on the position of the citation vis-a-vis other citations, 
whether the user has chosen to modify the local styling, etc.)

- insert (rendered) bibliography

The second level is to actually allow browsing of a data source from 
within the word-processor.


Or something like that. I'm distracted with other things 

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] Fwd: [office] data templating (and citations)

2007-02-01 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


FYI, frmo a discussion at the OASIS ODF TC about the styling part of  
the bibliographic equation. Basically, we're trying to decide between  
two options:


1) finish the CSL spec and submit it for standardization (probably  
through OASIS), and ...
2) adapt some of the logic to the ecisting ODF templating sytem  
(which is too limited for us)


As Michael says, we can also onsider a hybrid appraoch.

One problem with the standardization approach is that I just don't  
thiknk I have the time to do it now without a lot of help.


Bruce

Begin forwarded message:

From: Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg  
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Date: February 1, 2007 8:50:49 AM EST
To: Bruce D'Arcus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: office Office [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [office] data templating (and citations)

Hi Bruce,

Bruce D'Arcus wrote:

Hi Michael,
On Feb 1, 2007, at 5:45 AM, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 -  
Hamburg wrote:

So my question is, how shall we deal with this issue?
I see two options:
1)  use CSL for configuration (either blessed by the ODF TC, or  
not)


Is there a specification for CSL? How stable is it?
There is a commented schema that I'd call a 1.0 draft (so subject  
to minor changes), which can form the basis of a spec, but I've  
not yet done the formal written spec.


When will the formal spec be ready? I think it is obvious that the  
TC can only consider to use/include CSL in ODF if there is a formal  
spec in the style of the ODF specification itself that the TC can  
review. Do you think this formal spec is something that you can  
prepare in the ODF 1.2 timeline, or more within the timeline of a  
later version.



And is it going to be standardized?

I'm certainly open to that.
As you might guess, it'd take a little time for this to happen.


Sure. So an option we have is to switch to CSL when it has been  
standardized, and to stay with current solution until when, maybe  
adding the one or two mostly wanted features to it.


Do you have any idea where you would like to standardize CSL?


Bruce

Michael

--
Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
StarOffice/OpenOffice.org
Sun Microsystems GmbH Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://sun.com/staroffice +49 40 23646 500
http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] zotero and OOo

2007-01-31 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Jan 31, 2007, at 12:11 PM, Herbert Snorrason wrote:


On 31.1.2007, at 17:03, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
I still think it'd be easier if we could have a standard API on the 
word-processor end (Word, Writer, KWord, etc.) so that this is easier 
to do in a standard way. Hopefully we can get that in OOo sometime 
soon.


Is that one standard or two standards?


One; say ZOOM, as implemented in the freely-available Yaz code from 
Index Data.


http://www.indexdata.dk/yaz/

Because Microsoft's modus operandi in the file format case is 
certainly not promising for any standardised API...


Sure, but I am presuming one could write an independent plug-in for 
Word that avoided having to worry about MS's intentions or interests 
(perhaps even building off their Research Pane?).


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Fwd: [Bibdesk-users] Long author name

2007-01-30 Thread Bruce D'Arcus

On 1/29/07, James Howison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Just a use-case that might be useful for considering the range of
formatting requirements for the in-page citation.  Jurabib offers a
way to have an abbreviation of the full author show up in author-year
type styles.  Can CSL handle that?


No, and I need it. I've not figured out a good way to do this. Maybe
just have a flag on the style that says if abbreviated name present
use it for citation.

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] important question

2007-01-30 Thread Bruce D'Arcus

On 1/30/07, Leonard Mada [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Instead of having flags for every citation field, I suggested:
- have styles for citations
- AND allow more than one citation styles in the same document
   -- styles are set globally (therefore, IF one decides to change a
style, he changes all citations at once; with flags he would have had to
change every one singly)
   -- it would be difficult to construct wildly different styles
(something NOT easily done with flags)
   -- and the formatting code would be more simple, because there are
NOT plenty of flags and exceptions to deal with; a new style is simply a
new style, created by the same formatting engine;

for example:
'default style' for citation: [Author et al. Year] ( means only when
needed)
'style 1': [Author et al.]
'style 2': [Year]
'style 3': [Author et al., number], IF author has more than one
papers in the same year
...

We would set for every citation a style. IF NO style set, OOo should
assume default.

What do you think of it?


This is basically what James and I were discussing. The one caveat is
that my CSL language is completely abstracted from any particular
document format.

But this all can get very tricky to deal with, particularly when you
consider things like substitution logic (what happens when there's no
author?), first/subsequent citations, and so forth. I worry how adding
this flexibility would impact implementations.

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] important question

2007-01-30 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Jan 30, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Leonard Mada wrote:


Bruce D'Arcus wrote:

But this all can get very tricky to deal with, particularly when you
consider things like substitution logic (what happens when there's no
author?), first/subsequent citations, and so forth. I worry how adding
this flexibility would impact implementations.


1. first/ subsequent citations - internal index variable
Lifescience citations are often of the form [number], but I believe it 
is intelligent to have always an internal index, storing the citation 
number. This could be accessed to detect IF citation is first, is 
last, or there are more citations following.


2. implement simple conditional formatting in the styling engine, like
if('some condition')
  'write this IF true'
else
   'write this IF condition FLASE')

[could be written as a shorthand IF('condition', 'do-this-IF-TRUE', 
'do-this-IF-FALSE') ]

= therefore:
if(!'AuthorVar') Anonymous else 'AuthorVar'

These should be defined by the styles and NOT dealt automatically as 
very complex formatting logic.


Similarly, we could see if an author name has already been used, using 
a conditional logic, and output ibid. IF that is the case.


Of course, everything should be done transparently by OOo Writer. 
There is NO need for flags AND also NO need for any major changes in 
ODF. (Actually I do not see the need for any change in ODF.)


The only changes would be in Writer: to accept styles for citations 
AND to have a very flexible and powerful formatting engine. Yes, this 
last issue will need some intelligent design, but I am sure it is 
doable.


Yes. You might want to look at my work on CSL to understand where I'm 
coming from:


http://xbiblio.sf.net/csl/

So it's an XML language to describe citation formatting; completely 
independent of OOo and ODF. I suppose it'd be good if there was a way 
to modify the existing ODF templating system to handle the logic so 
that it was standardized there, but I'm not sure how easy that'd be, as 
the current system is really limited.


Having spent a lot of time on this, I can tell you it's not easy ;-)


Requirements for the style formatter:
1. variables
 - index: %ii (internal index, in the order of appearance of the 
citation), %ri (reference index, in order of appearance in the 
reference list; this list could be sorted alphabetically, so %ii != 
%ri)
 - various entries: %a (Author Name), %ae (Author et al.), %ia 
(Initials + Name), %ai (Name, Initials)
   %y (year), %id (number, IF author has more than one paper 
published during the same year, else %id is not set)

   ... others (e.g. %c - citation as a whole)
2. conditional logic:
 - if('condition', 'TRUE-statement', 'FALSE-statement')
 - ifexist('condition', 'TRUE-condition', 'FALSE-condition'): e.g., IF 
citation already defined previously
 - if( (%ii-1)-'Author' == 'Author', ibidem., 'Author'): have 
access to previous entries


Well, I will be thinking more thoroughly during the next days, but I 
believe this is the way to go.


Leo


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] important question

2007-01-28 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Jan 28, 2007, at 3:43 PM, Matthias Basler wrote:


James Howison wrote:

 From time to time users are going to want to drop out of the style
defined ways of citing and use the flags themselves (ie I like this
style in general, but I want a comma instead of a semi-colon
separating the Author-Year.)


Hi bibliographers,

I just want to note that the above point is a very important one, 
imho. I know that Bruce tries to use automatic formatting according to 
a style, and that this facilitates an easy and automatic reformatting 
of the document. This is fine, but still the user always needs the 
possibility to opt out of the automatic formatting and do manual 
corrections on single citation entries (without loosing the connection 
to the cited work in the bibliographic DB).


There are a lot of issues here, but one of them is interoperability 
with other applications, including Word and other ODF-compliant 
applications (there's been some discussion at KOffice about this sort 
of functionality).


In Word, the way you override the formatting beyond the standard flags 
is to flatten the field to text.


Certainly we want flexibility, but we have to be very careful about it. 
Every single place where we add a configuration option, we make 
implementation and interoperability more complicated. I, for example, 
don't see why we should allow users to change the delimiter for a 
citation per James' example above.


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] important question

2007-01-28 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Jan 28, 2007, at 3:55 PM, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:

I, for example, don't see why we should allow users to change the 
delimiter for a citation per James' example above.


Ahem, just to be clear, I mean *locally.* E.g. I don't see why the 
global configuration of a style says the citation should be (Doe, 
1999), and we have to allow users to be able to have some citations be 
(Doe:1999), *and* to remain live and updateable.


*That* is overkill in my view.

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] important question

2007-01-28 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Jan 28, 2007, at 5:45 PM, Gannon Dick wrote:


As I see it, there are several reasons to keep locale.  None are
related to computer processing, but rather Library Science.


Locale for the source metadata, sure, but I'm still unclear why the 
citation field itself needs it.


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] smarttags in OOo

2007-01-27 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


Hi CPH,

On Jan 27, 2007, at 8:02 AM, CPHennessy wrote:

I'm not sure if it makes sense but would the smarttags feature which 
was

recently added be useful to develope the citation component ?


Yeah, maybe. A few months ago I talked to the guys who were working on 
this about our work and the metadata stuff going on at the ODF TC. 
Hopefully it'll all come together.


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] important question

2007-01-27 Thread Bruce D'Arcus
Well, here's the citation field switches in Microsoft's Open XML 
format, which we have to be able to convert in and out of:


\l The text in this switch's field-argument specifies the locale which 
shall be used  in conjunction with the specified bibliographic style to 
format the citation in  the document.  \f The text in this switch's 
field-argument specifies the prefix which shall be  prepended to the 
citation.
\s The text in this switch's field-argument specifies the suffix which 
shall be  appended to the citation.
\p The text in this switch's field-argument specifies the page number 
associated  with the citation.
\v The text in this switch's field-argument specifies the volume number 
associated  with the citation.
\n Specifies that the author information shall be suppressed from the 
citation.
\t Specifies that the title information shall be suppressed from the 
citation.
\y Specifies that the year information shall be suppressed from the 
citation.
\m The text in this switch's field-argument specifies the Tag 
(§7.6.2.65) element  value for another source to be included in this 
citation's field result.


So translating:

locale -- not sure why we need this?
prefix -- already have
suffix -- already have
page -- already have (but richer, because not limited to pages)

And then a second group which is more the flags I was asking about:

suppress-author
suppress-year
suppress-title

Am still not really clear when you'd need the last two, but would be 
happy to recommend these. But since here they are flags like this, it 
might be valuable to have these as dedicated attributes, rather than 
simple values of a single attribute (which would not allow one to mix 
the options).


Any options?

Bruce
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] important question

2007-01-24 Thread Bruce D'Arcus

Hi,

I'm making some minor changes to the ODF citation field that I hope 
will be added soon. One change I want to make is to add control to the 
local styling attribute. This is the flag that will say, for example, 
suppress author, so that you get (1999) instead of (Doe, 1999).


My question is, what flags do we need beyond suppress author?

Here's the fragment:

biblioref-attlist = attribute meta:resource { xsd:anyURI }, attribute 
cite:style { suppress-author }


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Re: Smart Tags

2006-11-25 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Nov 25, 2006, at 6:16 AM, Gannon Dick wrote:


As I envision it, the RUST tag would exist as ad hoc protection for PII
(Personal Identifying Information).  So, the easier it is to specify a
text block to be rusted the better.


I don't think there's any need for some specific new element for what 
you want. Micro-formats can achieve this already in HTML.


All you're saying is you want to tag content with custom metadata, 
something you cannot now do (aside from using styles) in OOo, but which 
you will be able to do when the new metadata support in ODF is done and 
implemented in OOo.


Smart-tags can be a mechanism to automatically add such custom metadata 
to spans of text.


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] ODF and xsd schema

2006-10-31 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Oct 31, 2006, at 6:24 PM, Gannon Dick wrote:


a) ODF is authored in RELAX NG, which has far more power to validate
this sort of stuff than XSD.


The Dublin Core is authored in XSD or RDF, and both namespaces are
controlled by the W3C.  I don't want to produce RELAX NG schema for
Dublin Core as a prerequsite for further work.  I assume in this that
OpenOffice produces valid ODF output, and that ODF uses the dublin core
properly when the dublin core is used directly.


Dublin Core is just a set of property terms really. It's 
technology-agnostic.


But in ODF, the existing DC support is defined in RELAX NG, as is 
everything else in ODF.


...


I'll ignore the absurd presumption of high-priesthood rank for your
cartel, but will say that I haven't asked you to modify ODF in any way.


Oh please; don't shoot the messenger. I'm just telling you a) you're 
not being clear, and b) the scope of these discussions are typically 
not for this list, but rather for the OASIS lists.


And anyone can join the ODF Metadata SC, you included.


 You should feel free to summarily dismiss any proposal that was never
made.  What to see my schema ?, I asked.  I'll take that as a no.


Answering the question want to see my schema? presumes I understand 
what you are attempting to achieve with the schema, something that you 
have not made clear.



As I said, I'm not trying to be rude, but I am pressing you to
clarify what you are trying to do, and maybe rethink whether it's the 
best

approach.


I assuming ODF correct, which should explain the XSD schema.  As I see
it you have three types of output 1) meta namespace 2) dc namespace and
3) intermediate (user-defined).


Now user-defined properties are not namespaced.

To move data from the meta or dc namespaces to the RDF namespace is 
fairly mechanical.


You wouldn't be moving metadata between these namespaces. You would be 
placing the metadata within the RDF framework/model; that's it. E.g. 
this:


rdf:Description rdf:about=http://ex.net/1;
  dc:titleSome Title/dc:title
/rdf:Description

... is just an RDF resource description with a dc:title property. The 
property is represented exactly the same in ODF 1.0; in the same 
namespace.


Moving the intermediate to the RDF namespace can be done in two ways: 
1) give meta:user-defined an xsi:type attribute as is the 
recommendation of DCMI for their dc and dcterms. or, 2) Use a GRDDL 
transformation ala the W3C. This is fairly new and not too well 
defined, but Chemists and Physicists familiar with Wave Mechanics will 
appreciate: A QName is 2/3 of a RDF tupple,


OK, you need to change the language here. You are talking about 
transforming non-RDF XML to RDF. Yes, you can can use GRDDL (e.g. 
XSLT), or perhaps schema annotations in whatever language (XSD, etc.).



Having said that, RDF is not the destination, it's the common measure.


What does common measure mean?

...


My aim is to develop practical guidelines for applications which use
ODF as a starting point.


Practical guidelines for what and whom? And to return to the subject 
I raised above, isn't this the job of the ODF TC? They develop the 
standard and write the documentation after all.


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] ODF and xsd schema

2006-10-29 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Oct 29, 2006, at 4:51 PM, Gannon Dick wrote:


With this validation, I was able to solve at least one of the problems
with a generic API for meta data.  The validation constrains the XML
to a set of core DC elements (dc:title, dc:subject ...[6, I think])
and constrains the User Defined Name attribute to a QName in the DC
or DCTERMS namespace (exact, Not just any QName looking thing will do).
 I have still to add XLINK to the office:meta namespace, but that's
shouldn't be too big a chore.


I don't mean to be rude, but I'm not at all following what you're 
trying to do here:


a) ODF is authored in RELAX NG, which has far more power to validate 
this sort of stuff than XSD. And there's debate about whether we want 
to be validating the XML vocabulary terms at all. So why are you using 
XSD to try to do just that? It doesn't make any technical sense 
(particularly the bit about sticking the user-defined content in the dc 
or dcterms namespace!).


b) the ODF metadata SC (and me in particular) have been working on and 
thinking about the use cases, requirements, and technical details of 
the enhanced metadata support for the past 12 months. Notwithstanding 
the administrative issues with you making proposals outside the OASIS 
process, do you really think that you are going to tell us anything 
that we haven't already thought about?


As I said, I'm not trying to be rude, but I am pressing you to clarify 
what you are trying to do, and maybe rethink whether it's the best 
approach.


If you want to know how *you* would set up a workflow (maybe XSD 
based?) in this new world that I have been talking about, then I can 
probably help you think that through. It wouldn't be that hard. But 
it's just not clear from what you've said.


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] ODF and xsd schema

2006-10-27 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Oct 27, 2006, at 4:51 AM, juskenabble wrote:


Does anybody know where to find a specific xsd schema, which the open
document format part context.xml must comply ? I have been searching 
for

quite a long time, but I havent found anything.


There is none; it's RELAX NG. Available from here:

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=office

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Re: [sw-discussion] Re: [dev-biblio] Re: [sw-discussion] generic structured fields, citations

2006-10-24 Thread Bruce D'Arcus

On 10/24/06, Jakob Lechner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 10:58 -0400, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
 This is my opinion, but I think metadata in ODF should conform to a
 common model. Otherwise, we end up with little islands of content that
 are intelligible without dedicated code. I think custom schema support
 as implemented by MS is not a good model for ODF.

Wouldn't this approach be a little too restrictive? You can't specify a
xml schema for all use cases. May be fixed schemas for the most common
use cases like contacts or citations etc. could be provided. But
what if someone wants to store metadata about his music collection
in an openoffice document? Just an example.


Good example. There's no problem; I'm advocating a common *model*,
with no restrictions on how it's used. See:

http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/Metadata_Model_and_Syntax

So no need for a schema; just add the properties you want. The only
restriction would not be on what you say, but *how* you say it.

I'm also advocating including a series of default modules that can be
reused for different cases. In the case of the user that wants to
store music collections, they could reuse most of the default
vocabularies..

This is similar to what Adobe does with its XMP system (also based on
RDF), but adapted more to ODF, and to RDF in the 21st century (Adobe
designed XMP somewhere around 2000).

And this is of course for metadata content that benefits from some
common model; I don't imagine it'd be valuable for all custom content
use cases.

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] default db should be empty

2006-10-23 Thread Bruce D'Arcus

From Dan Chudnov (library hacker):

http://onebiglibrary.net/story/open-office-rant-of-the-day

Does anybody know why OpenOffice ships with a bibliography database 
that's *already* filled out with a bunch of records? Do they assume we 
all want to write papers about OpenOffice?


And why, please tell me, do I have to delete each record individually, 
no matter what UI/key combination I try?


This doesn't make any sense. Am I missing something?


Can we get these little details changed in an interim release (say 
2.0.5?) before we do something more significant?


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] Re: [sw-discussion] default db should be empty

2006-10-23 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Oct 23, 2006, at 1:18 PM, Andre Schnabel wrote:

There is really no need to rand a prefilled database. You could use 
this databes to by some really usefull books about OOo that would have 
explained how to delete those records.


Thanks for the explanation, but I hope you're joking here. There's no 
good reason why this db is prefilled. It comes across like beta 
software where someone forget to remove the test data.


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] For your reading pleasure ...

2006-10-23 Thread Bruce D'Arcus

On 10/23/06, David Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Organisations could add macros to the document save process to force you to
add text. But I have see the results of such policies - long lists of swear
words in the catalogues and lots of aaa, bbb, acd etc. You can force people
to type it is harder to keep them sensible.


I think the trick is to make it as automated as possible. For example,
in Word, you can write a macro to prompt for title and such, and then
have template fields that automatically add them to the document in
the right place. So it's no more typing than you'd otherwise do.

Likewise, contract info for the author can be automatically added.

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] For your reading pleasure ...

2006-10-22 Thread Bruce D'Arcus

On 10/22/06, Gannon Dick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Is there a way to prioritize RDF elements or are they all peers?


In RDF, you just have subject-predicate-object statements. So they are
indeed all peers.

The way to encourage certain expectations about those statements, it
seems to me, is to bless some kind of standard vocabularies; e.g. DC,
vCard, Creative Commons, and some stuff specific to citations. I
expect that's what we'll do in ODF. So not really any kind of rules,
but recommendations.

Your sort of reporting will be easy to do though. I actually wrote a
generic XSLT that did something like that.

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] For your reading pleasure ...

2006-10-20 Thread Bruce D'Arcus

On 10/20/06, Gannon Dick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


I have a slightly different, but I think more practical, approach to
Meta Data in ODF documents.


Different and more practical than what?

I'm not able to access the documents in any case.

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] For your reading pleasure ...

2006-10-20 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Oct 20, 2006, at 5:48 PM, Gannon Dick wrote:


I have a slightly different, but I think more practical, approach to
Meta Data in ODF documents.


OK, I managed to access the documents, but I really don't understand 
what you're advocating. Metadata in ODF 1.2 will almost certainly use a 
generic RDF model (perhaps a subset of it), and be available to 
describe virtually anything in the document. It will be practical, 
flexible, and powerful, and will open the door to a generic metadata 
API in ODF applications.


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] How to use Zoterero with OOo

2006-10-09 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Oct 9, 2006, at 1:08 AM, David Wilson wrote:

You may be aware that the Firefox bibliographic add-on Zotero is now 
available
to the public and that it uses Bruce D'Arcus's CiteProc engine to 
produce the

bibliographic table.


Corrections:

1) it does not use CiteProc; it uses the CSL styling language. CiteProc 
is just one impllementation; they wrote their own Javascript version.


2) ahem, can we please stop using the term table; I've found it 
confusing to most people, including me.


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Hierarchical Keyword Tree

2006-09-30 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Sep 29, 2006, at 12:31 PM, Leonard Mada wrote:

What I want is an amalgam of both, and even more than that. Simple 
keywords are to primitive and do not offer the wanted advantages when 
you want to search something. e.g. I recently searched for the term 
febrile neutropenia on Pubmed and retrieved 1883 search results. 
This search was not the most sensitive, though. Searching for 
febrile and neutropenia yields 3500 results. Searching for fever 
and neutropenia results in 3283 hits.


Thanks for this practical example Leonard. It's a good one!

As the sensitivity of the search increases, so drops the specificity. 
Most of those documents would have been useless for me. And by the 
way, febrile neutropenia is not such a common term. If you search 
for something common, you would have one-two orders of magnitude more 
search results.


There is definitively the need for something better, and I believe a 
form of hierarchical keywords (or tags) could offer some relief, but 
there is definitely need for a more thorough thought on this subject.


Given all the stuff going on with RDF these days, take a look at SKOS:

http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2005/06/22/skos.html

It's basically a hierarchical concept vocabulary. So you define a 
controlled taxonomy by creating concepts, and specifying their 
relations. To then link into that taxonomy, you just have something 
like:


dc:subject rdf:resource=http://ex.net/joe/concepts/foo/

My taxonomy is here (though not very well developed):

http://www.users.muohio.edu/darcusb/meta/topics

For software that understands RDF and SKOS, then, it will know that foo 
is, say, a more narrow concept of bar. I think that's what we all need.


The trick is how to do this in a GUI, and how to offer users both 
useful constraint and flexibility?


I could imagine in, say, a web service environment, users defining 
themselves as parts of particular communities, and then having 
dedicated taxonomies that could be plugged in, all fairly seamlessly.


So imagine a general taxonomy, maybe hooked into wordnet and linked to 
Wikipedia, and then more focused ones for different communities (law, 
medicine, philosophy). You add and search by tags using auto-complete.


Also, this way you do not have always to remember every keyword 
(tag) that should be included in the tree (the tree is simply there; 
no user would create for every new search a new, very different tree; 
rather, most trees would be used for a number of searches, and a new 
tree would most often be a tweek of a previous tree, not a de novo 
invention).


As a user I find this very attractive. The problem is, what happens 
when the term you want doesn't exist?


Note, I am explicitly thinking of a multi-user -- internet-scale -- 
context here. Zotero is going live next week, and these guys are really 
going to push innovation in this space. They are adding auto-complete 
tags, and will later be adding server functionality and 
social-networking/data merging and such. So I think we need to think in 
internet-scale terms.


I have over 2500 articles on my PC. They are arranged hierarchically 
in subdirectories. The problem is:

- articles may belong to more than one directory (aka category)
 -- I would like to have more than one tree for my articles, but you 
can't do this on a filesystem
- I need sometime searches on more than one subdirectory from 
different directory trees (this is indeed difficult to do on a file 
system)
- there are many other limitations, but currently its the best method 
to organise so many articles


When you have so many articles, the organization of them becomes a 
real nightmare.


I think you'll really appreciated Zotero. It has hierarchical 
collections, which are just virtual folder (though in the current 
version, selection a parent collection does not select the children; 
hopefully they've fixed that).


So there tags and collections are two different ways to organization 
items.


I believe that hierarchical keywords are a good start (!!and I do not 
have any better idea right know!!). Therefore, I believe that a little 
brainstorming would be quite useful.


Agreed. Take a look at Zotero next week and see what you think. I'm in 
touch with the developers, so hopefully we can keep moving towards a 
really innovative solution here where we all benefit.


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Hierarchical Keyword Tree

2006-09-30 Thread Bruce D'Arcus
Hah, just came across this after sending the last message. The fly 
through comment refers to their use of -- you guess it -- hierarchical 
tags! Not sure how they're doing it internally, but storage is RDF, so 
I'd guess it's something like what I was talking about with SKOS.


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Hierarchical Keyword Tree

2006-09-28 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Sep 26, 2006, at 5:51 PM, Leonard Mada wrote:

I come up with another idea regarding the standardisation of keywords.  
I believe that the ultimate goal is to have standard keywords, too.  
However, as this will be difficult, a possible solution is to let  
users specify their own keywords. Have a talk-back feature. Collect  
used keywords over a period of 1-2 years. And build a list with the  
most frequently used keywords. These are likely to be used more widely  
and therefore could be bundled with future versions of OOo. Of course,  
users could change this list and adapt it further to their specific  
needs, but it would be a starting point for their own list.


I've suggested something like this to the Zotero developers:

http://netapps.muohio.edu/blogs/darcusb/darcusb/archives/2006/09/09/ 
zotero-and-the-practical-semantic-web


But there you use other mechanisms for associating tags than uses  
having to worry about explicitly defining a hierarchy.


BTW, Zotero ought to be going public beta next week. I suggest people  
take a close look when it does.


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Hierarchical Keyword Tree

2006-09-28 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Sep 28, 2006, at 4:04 PM, Matthias Basler wrote:

Just a question for me to understand what exactly you are talking 
about when you refer to keywords.


AKA tags as used in Flickr, etc., etc.

I actually believe the basic idea of tags is right (really simple for 
uses to add), but that we can make them much more powerful while 
retaining their simplicity.


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] new extensions framework

2006-09-23 Thread Bruce D'Arcus

http://www.techworld.com/applications/news/index.cfm?RSSNewsID=6944

I think this is a really good move which might have implications for us.

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] OpenOffice Bib API

2006-09-22 Thread Bruce D'Arcus
FYI, David Wilson put up a wiki page to come up with suggested  
enhancements to the OpenOffice bibliographic API.


http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ 
Bibliographic_API_Enhancements


I'm trying to find out about Microsoft's new citation and  
bibliography API, but am not finding any details; just this:


http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms406055.aspx

... which says:

New members in the Word 2007 object model, such as the Bibliography  
object in both the Application object and the Document object,  
allow you to work with bibliographies and citations programmatically.


Not much help though.

It seems to me off-hand, though, that the job of the citation API is  
to hand-off IDs to the citation processor and insert the proper  
formatted text that it returns. Likewise for the bibliographic API.


To quote Oliver Sprecht [1]:

[22:38:50] oliverspecht You're loading your data -  
bibliographical data. We are loading the textual representation of  
the fields and the bibliographic index.


In any case, we need to nail down this bit in a reasonable time. Feel  
free to contribute.


Bruce

[1] http://bibliographic.openoffice.org/servlets/ProjectDocumentView? 
documentID=3670noNav=true


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Re: [sw-discussion] generic structured fields, citations

2006-09-21 Thread Bruce D'Arcus

On 9/21/06, Jakob Lechner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Am Dienstag, den 19.09.2006, 08:50 -0400 schrieb Bruce D'Arcus:
 [...]

 Can you give me some specific use case examples that might benefit
 from such a generic structured metadata field? Citations is one. I
 could imagine contacts would be another, where you link to a contact
 record.

Let's say we have an OOo document with embedded metadata that
can be altered inline. A possible use case would be an external
application that could access the OOo document and read the embedded
metadata and use it for some other task (store it in a database).

Maybe you want to write a report in a firm. You have a document that
includes fields like author, subject, date, importance, short
description, etc.

Then this report could be automatically processed and the field values
could be fed into a some sort of report db.


Nice!


I will try to implement some sort of prototype to show what is possible.
I'd like to start with the front-end for fields that includes GUI
adaption and data structures for managing fields that are inserted into
the document.
The back-end, i.e. the actual data source and the interface between
front-end and back-end could be done in a separate step.


Yes, that makes sense.


I'd be glad for any proposals or hints about things that I should take
care of.


See the archive I have attached to the message archived at this link.

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-metadata/200608/msg00016.html

It reflects how I've been thinking about storing the metadata. So
basically there are domain or feature specific metadata files that get
registered in the manifest with a text/rdf+xml mimetype, and I
imagine specific functionality could be responsible for different
chunks of metadata (though because a common model, they could be
linked).

Let me know if you have any thoughts about that, and about the field
to link to it.

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] Re: [sw-discussion] Smart Tags in Openoffice Writer

2006-09-04 Thread Bruce D'Arcus

Hi Jakob,

On Sep 4, 2006, at 4:23 AM, Jakob Lechner wrote:


Am Freitag, den 01.09.2006, 12:00 -0400 schrieb Bruce D'Arcus:

[...]
But what *is* a keyword in this context?


A keyword can be any word specified in a given smarttag library.


You're talking implementation. I'm asking a more basic conceptual 
question.


A keyword in this context, it seems to me, is just a mechanism to 
automatically attach meaning to in-document content, and from there to 
associate some behavior with that enhanced content.


E.g. it in fact is an example of the content tagging use case we at the 
ODF Metadata SC have been discussing.


http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/Content_Tagging


[...]


If support for complex smarttag libraries (i.e. UNO components) is
implemented, arbitrary actions can be attached onto recognized words.
So may be these smarttag libraries would be suitable for your needs.


OK, great.

All I'm asking is that you keep in mind the ODF TC metadata work, so 
that we can be sure that we both benefit (us from your implementation 
issues and experience, and you from being standard's compliant).


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] ODF requirements

2006-07-28 Thread Bruce D'Arcus

Peter, comment from one of the MS people on Brian Jones' blog:

Since Open XML is the default format for Office 2007, I don't think 
that MS has changed a lot in the binary format and adapted the XML 
format as an afterthought. So the reference for binary compatibility 
would be Office 2003. Any problem that Office 2003 has with reading 
binary Word 98 files will probably also be there when converting Word 
98 files to Open XML.
But that's more or less a problem of the past. These quirks in 
backwards compatibility have already had their effects, and it's just 
about as useful to complain about those as it is to complain about any 
other problem in the old binary formats. I mean, there's a reason even 
MS want's to get rid of them.


It sounds like based on that compatibility between Office 2003/2004 and 
2007 will be very good. My guess is the field stuff is probably 
significantly older than that though.


I'd push on them to have full-fidelity round-trip conversion of OXML 
with previous versions via their planned plug-in.


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] cleaned up wiki some

2006-07-22 Thread Bruce D'Arcus

FYI, I just went through and cleaned up the main wiki page a bit:

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ 
Bibliographic_Project%27s_Developer_Page#Remote_Server_Integration


Main changes are using the term citation field to refer to the new  
citation support, to make clear exactly what it is from a developer's  
POV, and moving the first/subsequent issue to Stage 1 (I don't want  
that support designed without considering this).


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] bringing our description closer inline with existing OOo bib API

2006-07-22 Thread Bruce D'Arcus
It's occurred to me in looking at all this again that we need see where  
we can simply use and/or enhance the existing bib APIs in OOo: to see  
if we can disentangle what are GUI problems, from something fundamental  
in the design.


It seems to me these APIs look fine:

Bibliography


http://api.openoffice.org/docs/common/ref/com/sun/star/text/ 
FieldMaster/Bibliography.html


It has the necessary sorting properties. I think it might just need a  
property to say whether subsequent entries from an author get replaced  
with em-dashes.  In my CSL language, I have:


   bibliography author-as-sort-order=all author-shorten-with=———.
  sort-order=author-date

We need something to cover the author-shorten-with attribute.

BibliographyDataField
=

http://api.openoffice.org/docs/common/ref/com/sun/star/text/ 
BibliographyDataField.html#


This is the one that has always made me cringe, because it's based on  
BibTeX.


However, if I understand right, the data values here are just  
constants, where the data itself is stored in a hash.  If that's right,  
then we could easily fix this.


BibliographyDataType


http://api.openoffice.org/docs/common/ref/com/sun/star/text/ 
BibliographyDataType.html


As above, if we can easily change the types (like, say, now!), then we  
can fix this.




Where I think the problem is is the citation/bibliography mark, but I  
can't find the API documentation for that. Also, the bibliography stuff  
needs to be understand as more generic, so that the data can be used  
even if there isn't a bibliography printed (as with note citations).


Bruce
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] GUI

2006-07-22 Thread Bruce D'Arcus
OK, am just looking again through the details of the existing GUI,  
seeing if we can get by with minimal changes that might have a big  
impact on functionality. So, random thoughts:


1)  I think maybe we need our own citation entry in the insert  
menu (and maybe in tools?).


2)  The insert citation GUI is a problem, as has been noted many  
times. I think the most basic change that is essential is a search  
field (pop-ups don't work if you have 2,000 entries, though  
interestingly, MS is making the same mistake), though ideally we'd  
redo this as a table similar to MS's Research Pane.


3)  The function to update all indexes ought to have an option for  
continuous update, or break off our stuff with its own config option  
for this


4)  I find the indexes and tables GUI really awkward, but if we had  
to keep it, probably the simplest solution is to just rip out all the  
manual configuration stuff and have a simple CSL style selector.


Aside: this isn't to suggest that I wouldn't prefer a full CSL  
editing GUI, but that it would take significantly enhancing the  
existing GUI. In particular, we'd need:


  -  templates to be able to have hierarchy (prefixes and suffixes  
belong to the field)

  -  configuration for substitution

One option, then, would just be to remove it for the medium term, and  
add it back in later?


That's all for now.

I do prefer how MS configures bibliographies, BTW. They have a  
citation section of their reference ribbon section. Inserting a  
bibliography simply involves choosing from a previewed option list on  
the ribbon. An OOo equivalent, then, would be a tools -- citation  
menu, and then options like:


style (choose APA, Chicago, etc.)
	bibliography (choose None, References, Works Cited,  
Bibliography, etc.)


One weakness of this approach, though, is it probably makes it more  
difficult to do things like per-chapter vs. global bibliographies (?).


Anyway, anybody have any opinions? What would be the minimum we'd  
need to make us happy? Do I have it right above?


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] more on word support

2006-07-17 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Jul 16, 2006, at 10:23 PM, pt wrote:

1. An external reference database / research tool that could be used 
with

both Word and Writer. It should be able to store not jsut metadata but
full-text articles,  notes, webpage snapshots  other supporting data.


Right. I think this is slowly being taken care of by others. The 
Firefox Scholar plug-in (aka SmartFox), for example, is likely to be 
really good, and will be free (GPL). They also have interest in serving 
as data sources for word-processors.


I am still not convinced that storing reference details with a 
document is a
good idea; the biggest reason is that even if interop can be sorted 
out this

will still only work with Word 2007 and a future version of Writer.


Why? I'm pretty sure there must be a way to store that data in earlier 
versions of the apps. Apps like Endnote, for example, have been 
embedding data in Word docs for years. It's just never been 
standardized.


In our case, in any case, we're not dependent on embedded data; it's a 
convenience. I think Microsoft, by contrast, is dependent on it.


The difference is that I'll be pushing to ensure that the identifiers 
for citations are uris, where we recommend best practices to make it 
easy to reconstitute data as needed. MS, by contrast, is using dumb 
local natural language ids for linking. E.g. they always assume the 
data is embedded.


2. An external CSL editor that can export compiled XSLT for Word - and 
maybe
Python code  for Writer. (I don't agree with Bruce that this needs to 
be

built in to Word or that the size of XSLT files is a problem since they
would be auto-generated from a CSL file).


The code to generate static XSLTs of this sort is not easy to write, 
and it makes everything more, not less, complex, doesn't it?  For 
example, how do styles get stored, and how would a user add a style? 
What happens if you need to update a style?


CSL is simple enough that it's really not hard to write a parser for 
it. The SmartFox guys will be doing just that using Javascript (E4X to 
be specific, which has XML extensions).



3.  Interoperable citation markers that will allow cross-word-processor
teams to work together.

Microsoft are clearly not going to be swayed by lobbying, and it's not 
clear

to me how much Sun will do to push this stuff through.


MS won't be swayed to do the right thing aside from what's in their own 
interest. I am trying to point out to them where those overlap (for 
example, they don't support footnotes within the citation fields; am 
making sure that's not a file format restriction, which would be bad 
for them too), and am optimistic interop will be fairly good.


FWIW, MS is using standard field support to implement the coding for 
citations.


As for OOo and Sun, I think we need at minimum to get the new citation 
field implemented and exposed so that projects like your's and 
Matthias' can easily interest with it.


Why not concentrate on building stand-alone tools that work with the 
current installed base of

word processing software? That is, build a better EndNote.


I agree.


(That's what I hope my team will be doing over the coming year - in
alignment with the work going on here)


Cool. You should hook up with the SmartFox guys. They'll be releasing a 
beta sometime in the next few months, complete with support for CSL and 
the biblio schema I've been working on ;-).


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] more on word support

2006-07-16 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Jul 16, 2006, at 5:38 AM, David Wilson wrote:

I read through the exchange and I think you put your position very 
well  and

the response was rather defensively or evasive.


I think it's worth paying close attention to what they've done not just 
for interoperability's sake, but also because they seem to have very 
similar design goals, as well as constraints. To quote Jennifer:


Please keep in mind that this is a v1 feature, and our first goal was 
to make the tools extremely useful for high school and college 
students. We designed this feature to be a platform so that anyone – 
us, in later versions; any 3rd party like EndNote; or you(!) could 
build tools on top of ours. That’s why everything in this feature is 
XML-based. Certainly there are more things we could have delivered 
with more time and person-power, but we tried first to make sure our 
platform was solid.


And I think with some caveats, they will have met these goals. I am 
particularly intrigued by their no-local-database approach, where the 
editing forms are only editing XML data embedded in the file package.


This is something we need to seriously consider for OOo (though we can 
do a better job).


Bruce
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] more on word support

2006-07-14 Thread Bruce D'Arcus

So based on back-and-forth with the product manager responsible for
the new bib support in Word 2007*:

1) they won't support footnote/endnote citations in v1
2) seems (?) they don't support first/subsequent distinctions in author-year
3) they think it perfectly fine to have styles implemented in raw XSLT
(they don't appear interested in using CSL or a CSL-like abstraction)

So this tells us where we can differentiate OOo. There's going to be a
lot of frustration with their default support, particularly among the
historians.

Also, on 3, it should possible to swap in a citeproc-like solution,
and so get support for CSL in Word through the back door. Hmm ...
wonder if I should try to productize citeproc for the Word market?
;-)

Bruce

* see comments at
http://blogs.msdn.com/joe_friend/archive/2006/07/13/664960.aspx

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] blog from MS product manager

2006-07-13 Thread Bruce D'Arcus

Not all that illuminating, but FYI:

http://blogs.msdn.com/joe_friend/archive/2006/07/13/664960.aspx

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Footnotes and with intext citations.

2006-07-10 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Jul 10, 2006, at 7:33 PM, David Wilson wrote:


All other citations are footnote citation. This practise is is followed
because otherwise the text would have a couple of hundred very short
footnotes of the type - Táin LL 183


But does that really matter, or is this more a convenience for authors 
who don't have good citation software, like the dreaded op. cit.?


Bruce
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Footnotes and with intext citations.

2006-07-10 Thread Bruce D'Arcus

On 7/10/06, David Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Would this work? The Add/Edit citation has  text input box with these options-

Custom Short title / Abbreviation (for this citation)
Custom Short title / Abbreviation (use for all subsequent citations)

(The first option is available in Ibidem. See
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org/screenImages/IbidemDescription_html_m729d184e.gif
  )

No need to bother CiteProc, it just replaces CiteProc's version of the cite
string with the one the user added in custom the cote text box for the
subsequent citations. The processing of this would be in Writer.


That's not the problem; the problem is there's no place to store that
information.


Yes it adds an other GUI function, we could put it in an 'Advanced' panel tab
so the standard options are not cluttered. Also if the method I propose could
work it could be added on at any time ... later.


OK.


Perhaps there should be book Abbreviation data element as there is for
Journals. If the user added a Book Abbreviation for a reference, maybe
CiteProc could return that instead of the Short title. That way the user
could decide on the default action?

Another option -
CiteProc returns the Book Abbreviation which is stored in the database and
with the reference data as a separate text string along with my suggested
list-

* In-text citation
* Footnote initial citation
* Footnote subsequent citation
* Endnote initial citation
* Endnote subsequent citation
* Ibid or 'op cite' text


For the record, I strongly object to including support for op cite
citations. They are:

a) an abomination for readers
b) unnecessary with citation software
c) for both these resaons, not recommended in contemporary style manuals

At a certain point we just need to reject old traditions when they defy logic.

Second, I really dislike the complexity of adding three different
kinds of citation style support to any given style. I certainly don't
support it in CSL or citeproc. If I choose APA, I am by definition
using an in-text author-year style, and it makes no sense to to give
users the option to use footnoies and endnotes.

For Chicago, which has different variants, the users can choose which
one; each as separate styles. And whether a note citation is at the
bottom of the page or the end of the document is largely irrelevant as
I've been thinking about it. In CSL, you define note citations, with
an option to distinguish first and subsequent.


* Book Abbreviation (new)

Then the user has the option buttons -

Use Abbreviation instead of Short Title for all subsequent citations y/n
insert intext or footnote


So you want to do this on a per-reference basis? Again, you need
somewhere to store it; don't you?


Also, I was told that if I used major authorities frequently I must use the
standard abbreviations. So we do need a way of using them.


I'm just a little overwhelmed with worrying about all the pieces that
we have to get right here, and will be really impressed if we manage
even to implement the more limited vision we've been talking about
(which is still more amitious, for example, than what MS is doing).

It's worth noting that MS is also adding support for tables of
authorities for legal citations, but they are doing it in a
fundamentally different way than using citation fields. The user just
tags a piece of text as such an entry, and then the list gets
assembled.

I think for some of the more complex stuff, we might need to consider
that option. Not everything can/should be gracefully automated?

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] localization?

2006-07-06 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


I wonder if the easy way to do this is to remove all strings from CSL 
files, define a list of variables, and allow them to be implemented 
natively in software? That way the files are mostly simplified, and 
remain self-contained. Doing that, I could also move the prefix and 
suffix elements back to attributes, since they don't have to carry any 
formatting information. Files become more compact, and any possible 
future OO code is simpler (prefix and suffix become simple attributes 
of an object, rather than full objects).


So thinking not in XML, but rather YAML, it could be as simple as this:

en:
  in: In
  and: and
  accessed: accessed
  date-accessed: date accessed
  presented-at: presented at
  editor-single-full: Editor
  editor-multiple-full: Editors
  editor-single-short: Ed
  editor-multiple-short: Eds
  edited-by: Edited By
  translator-single-full: Translator
  translator-multiple-full: Translators
  translator-single-short: Tran
  translator-multiple-short: Trans
  translated-by: Translated By

The style file would then just be responsible for selecting the right 
variables; something like:


accessed
   date
  label position=before/
   /date
   url/
/accessed
roles
   label text-transform=lowercase
suffix=. 
type=noun
form=short
position=before-unless-author/
/roles

I hadn't done this earlier because I thought it wasn't possible, but 
maybe I'm wrong.


The software would then know which specific variable to grab depending 
on, for example, the role and whether there is one or more. In code:


def print_role(role, type, form, single)
   case role
 when editor
   if type == noun and form == short and single == true then
 puts @@strings[en][editor-short]
   end
   end
 end

Not the best code, but you get the idea.

Would that work?

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] localization?

2006-07-05 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Jul 5, 2006, at 8:58 PM, James Howison wrote:

It occurs to me that one risk of not factoring out the language 
specific aspects is that changes or improvements made in the 'base 
styles' don't cascade to the other languages, leaving them to bit-rot, 
especially if some non-compatible change is made.


Hmm ... good point James.

OTOH, if the complexity increase of maintaining them linked to the 
main style, then that becomes a blocker too (and potentially a more 
serious one, at least from my english-centric PoV).


I think Matthias and I managed to figure out the more difficult things, 
and I'll see if I can't figure out a way to do it fairly painlessly.


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] xslt, citeproc-writer

2006-06-27 Thread Bruce D'Arcus

bib project questions ...

Re: David Wilson's idea that citeproc give pre-rendered citation and 
bibliography chunks (first/subsequent, etc.) and save it in the XML, 
described here:


http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Citeproc_Writer_Interaction

I've thought about this some, and agree with the first part, but not 
that the rendered content should be saved in the XML. I think perhaps 
we can modify the bibliographic class to store that pre-formatted 
content (or create a new ReferenceList class?), so that it's just 
stored in memory, rather than saved?


I've updated the wiki to reflect this.

So process is something like:

Citation passes list of ids to ReferenceList
ReferenceList requests formatted citation and bib chunks from citeproc
Citation requests formatted citation from ReferenceList
Bibliography = ReferenceList to ODF

I think this is how MS is doing it in Word 2007.

Right now citeproc is XSLT 2.0. It'd be nice if we could just use it 
more-or-less as is. Svante has suggested it's likely OOo might switch 
to using Saxon (and thus get XSLT 2.0 for free) in the next major 
release.


How feasible would it be to this? Could we implement essentially 
real-time citation processing using XSLT?


It's hard enough to get good C++ programmers, and I'd rather not have 
them waste time reimplementing citeproc in that language when it 
already works quite well.


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] xslt, citeproc-writer

2006-06-27 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


Hey Peter,

On Jun 27, 2006, at 11:09 PM, pt wrote:

I disagree Bruce, about not storing rendered content in the XML. I 
think it

needs to be stored in a rendered form.

If you don't then it will make it very hard to write things like
OpenDocument to HTML transforms in random languages as you would need 
to run

citeproc to format citations and bibliographies.


Maybe I wasn't clear, but the citation always gets included in the 
content file; there's no other way to display it after all. And that 
can be easily transformed to HTML or OXML.


What David was suggesting (if I understood right) was that the 
bibliographic source file (bibliography.xml or whatever) would, beyond 
the raw metadata, also include pre-rendered chunks for all potential 
citation rendering options for a given style, plus the bibliographic 
entry.


My problem with that is it results in redundant and unnecessary 
content, and pollutes the source file.



Related to this is an interoperability question. It is important not to
focus only on interop with OOo2, after all with a free software 
package it
is easy to get users to upgrade. Consider the interop problems with MS 
Word.


Given what I say above, do you still see any interop problems?

Have you considered an approach where citations are stored as rendered 
text

(or footnote/endnotes) in place with a link of some kind back to the
bibliographic database with the citation details stored as an item in 
the

database.


That's exactly what the new ODF approach (and the MS OXML approach) 
does ;-)



That is you would have a (1) Work, with (2) particular expression
(is that what you call it) with (3) a citation by page or line number 
or
whatever . That is three items in the database - and only one simple 
link in
the documnet text. Seems to me that this would fit very well with your 
RDF
approach, Bruce. And an approach like this might mean that you could 
build a

solution that could wodk with OpenXML docs as well.


Am not quite following this bit. The plan is:

1)  content.xml holds the new citation fields, which are:
a) link to a source record, and
b) rendered citation

2)  the source metadata gets stored in a dedicated file within the 
wrapper; maybe bibliography/source.xml


1b gets generated from 2. This is exactly how MS is doing it, 
coincidentally, in OXML.


What David was thinking about was funky citation styles (well, many of 
them, in fact; APA, Chicago, etc.) that distinguish first and 
subsequent citations. The way citeproc works now is, IT has to figure 
out this sort of positional information, and then inserts the right 
formatted version in the output.


The alternative, then, is to just have citeproc be rather dumb about 
it, and create the two representations for each citation, and have the 
new citation support figured out which to use.


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Enhance the Text-Field or Bookmark functions to include formatted text

2006-06-26 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Jun 26, 2006, at 9:46 PM, David Wilson wrote:

I would like to enter an issue to enhance database and text fields to 
support

formatted text.

The Bibliographic project wants this enhancement because some data 
fields in
the bibliography need to support formatted text. For example some 
scientific
document titles need to be able to display words in Italics. 
Mathematical

titles need to represent equations.  Currently fields can only hold
unformatted text.


Actually, the need for this is more general than just markup within 
fields. IIRC, this discussion happened when CPH looked into 
implementing the citation support and was hoping to make use of 
existing field support to display the formatted citations. The text 
field didn't allow anything but plain text, so that was out.



This enhancement would would  be of wider interest than just to the
Bibliographic project.


Yes, I agree.

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Important: Please Vote for Bibliographic Enhancements.

2006-06-25 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Jun 24, 2006, at 10:33 PM, Matthew Yates wrote:


I added my two votes.


Great; we're now at 51.

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] request for feedback: Word 2007 citation support

2006-06-25 Thread Bruce D'Arcus
This is maybe a bit unorthodox, but I'd like to get feedback from  
people on what we do in the future by having you take a close look at  
what Microsoft is doing in Word 2007. They're doing something similar  
to what I think we have been envisioning (I'm convinced someone in  
Redmond has been paying attention to what we've been doing), so it's  
actually not that strange.


So for anyone that has access to a Windows (XP, or Vista) box, please  
download the public beta, and post your thoughts. Or if not, there's  
always screenshots (see below).


I think what I''m most interested in now is the citation and  
bibliography GUI. There are a few pieces of this:


1)  This screenshot here shows how you insert a bibliography (and  
choose its basic layout) and switch citation styles:


http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3524_7-6529451-15.html

This works much more smoothly than in OOo. If you choose a different  
style from the pop-up, it automatically reformats (though if you add a  
new citation, it does not, which is a bug as far as I'm concerned).


Note: they are not (it seems) including a GUI to edits citation styles.  
I would be fine going this direction myself because easier to get  
things done right, but I wonder what others think. Would you give up a  
style GUI if you could modify a pretty simple XML file or simply  
download it transparently?


2)  These two show the citation editing interface:

http://www.users.muohio.edu/darcusb/images/cites/word-citation- 
context.jpg
http://www.users.muohio.edu/darcusb/images/cites/word-edit- 
citation.jpg


I rather like it myself, and have only minor nitpicks.

3)  The source editing form:

http://ptsefton.com/blog/2006/06/09/first-biblio-word-2007/ 
__embedded__1


4)  The source management GUI:

http://ptsefton.com/blog/2006/06/09/first-biblio-word-2007/ 
__embedded__2


Now, the tricky part of the last two is that it's not yet clear how  
they (or we) will deal with the relation between local and remote  
records. But this is enough to get us started.


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] also, backward compatability?

2006-06-25 Thread Bruce D'Arcus

Also, I have a question:

Does anyone really use the existing citation support, such that  
backward compatibility is a real concern? Just wondering, because we  
have it as a requirement:


http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ 
Bibliographic_Project's_Developer_Page#Backwards_and_Forwards_Compatibil 
ity


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] also, backward compatability and Word 2007

2006-06-25 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Jun 25, 2006, at 9:37 PM, Jon Rubin wrote:

On another question of Bruce's: no I would not give up a style editing 
GUI. It's not just that I have no interest in hand coding XML (however 
simple) but I don't think any of my colleagues would do either. 90% of 
the time not editing the styles won't be a problem but there's always 
one journal out there that wants it slightly different. Of course if 
Microsoft enforces strict following of style guidelines by not 
allowing any flexibility and journals fall into line because everybody 
is using Word, then this may not be a problem in any event!


There are two separate issues:

1) what we get programmers to commit to coding
2) a larger vision of possibilities

On the second, I've long thought that we ought to get to a place where 
a user never has to edit a style, or that if they did, they might do it 
via a web interface tied to a repository. So imagine instead of 
worrying about this, OOoBib could just grab your needed style off the 
web.


However the insert citation seems a bit wonky. I only have two 
citations so far, so a simple drop down list is fine but I could have 
hundreds - or at least enough to drop down past the end of the page 
making inserting a potential problem. I'll add more citations later to 
see how it handles longer lists.


I actually hadn't tested that bit, but I agree. I think we'd always 
assumed a simple filterable table where one could drag-and-drop, even 
if the database was remote.


What exactly is the 'tag name' for? I assume its supposed to be the 
unique identifier for that record.


Yeah, kind of. They have a separate GUID field in the XML, but this is 
a user-specific key.


This I suppose is in response to Bruce's query about remote and local 
records - it's only if that tag name is /really/ unique that that 
problem does not cause a major headache - or have I misunderstood the 
point about local and remote records?


Yeah, that's what I'm getting at. MS uses this key to associate 
citation with record, and I've told them this is a bad idea.


I suppose this could be answered by seeing how it handles when you 
have a new master record with some duplicated records (the help claims 
that, you might connect to a file on a share, on a research 
colleague's computer or server, or on a Web site that is hosted by a 
university or research institution ... well we shall see), but that 
is something for me to experiment with later.


I think the problem will come up when you have people collaborating on 
documents.


There doesn't seem to be any way to import bibliographies from formats 
other than an xml file, which is a major problem, so I've only added a 
couple of references.


Correct, though it's clear MS still has some stuff planned before final 
release. I wouldn't be hard to add that.


It doesn't appear to offer a footnote style of referencing so I can't 
tell whether or not it can handle switching to and from that kind of 
referencing and renumbering the footnotes.


It's hard to tell if they allow this or not. In theory (based on 
looking through the XML) it should support it, but who knows.



Yes I have voted for the bibliography improvements.


Good; we're now at 72!

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Important: Please Vote for Bibliographic Enhancements.

2006-06-24 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Jun 24, 2006, at 7:21 PM, David Wilson wrote:

and enter the number of votes  1-5 you would like to allocate to  
'Proposals
for Bibliographic facility enhancements.' in the text box next to that 
issue.

Click on the 'Submit button at the bottom of that page.


I just did this, but note: you can only assign up to 2 votes for any 
one issue. Can we split that into two issues?


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] citation GUI?

2006-06-20 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Jun 19, 2006, at 8:44 PM, David Wilson wrote:

If location-units are an either a separate list (possibly user 
extensible) or

at least gathered in one place in the code.


Right now, the list is controlled in the schema, which I think 
important for future interoperability.



It terms of program maintenance if would be nicer to add

 LP record=A/B side: Track#


Aside: I doubt there'd be need for this use case. The track info 
belongs to the bibliographic record; not the citation.


to the types of locations than to just add in at 'the right place' in 
the CSL

code.


Am not following.

There are two separate issues:

1)  the primary one I was getting at is whether it is really necessary 
to parse numbers (begin/end) or whether better to just have a simple 
value attribute.


2)  whether the locators ought to be attributes of cite:biblioref, or 
(as they are now) elements.


I'm thinking the answer to 2 is to keep it as is, but to change 1. This 
is so in part for easier future interoperability with Open XML, and 
also because it better matches how user input would work (we would have 
a single field).


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] citation GUI?

2006-06-19 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


Does anyone have any thoughts on the GUI screenshots I posted here  
for the new Word 2007 citation support?


http://netapps.muohio.edu/blogs/darcusb/darcusb/archives/2006/06/13/ 
multi-reference-citations-in-word-2007


I'm trying to think through, for example, how we might address the  
following limitation.


In general, this is well-done. However, it makes a problematic  
assumption that a user will only ever be using page numbers to  
identify a location within a document. In law and history, they  
often use paragraph, and even line, numbers. And sometimes they are  
combined. This is why in ODF we have separate elements—cite:detail— 
to encode this.


Relevant image is:

http://www.users.muohio.edu/darcusb/images/cites/word-edit- 
citation.jpg


The ODF support avoids any limitations at the XML level, it might be  
a little tricky in the GUI.


Bruce
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] citation GUI?

2006-06-19 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Jun 19, 2006, at 7:03 PM, David Wilson wrote:

But rather than have variable multi- part locators in the GUI we can 
keep the
single input box but with conventions such as time = hh:mm:ss or 
Manuscripts

=line#:Column#:[R/C]


Yeah, that's one possibility, though could get problematic when you 
consider internationalization. E.g. page=23; line=14 *might* be OK 
for an English speaker, but not for anyone else. And then you need code 
to handle all that, and conventions.


And consider, too, that most people would only ever deal with pages (I 
have used paragraphs, but very rarely), so we can't make the general 
case more difficult to accommodate the edge case.


In any case, worth further consideration.

BTW, on a related note, in the current ODF proposal we have:

cite:biblioref cite:key=doe99a cite:style=year
  cite:detail cite:units=pages cite:begin=23 cite:end=24/
/cite:biblioref

On further thought, I wonder if we shouldn't make things a little 
easier and just do:


cite:biblioref cite:key=doe99a cite:style=year
  cite:detail cite:units=pages cite:value=23-24/
/cite:biblioref

... or even:

cite:biblioref cite:key=doe99a cite:style=year 
cite:pages=23-24/


The latter would require a standard list of attributes there, though, 
which might be a little problematic.


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] funding (was Bibliographic Issues should be added to the marketing strategy)

2006-06-17 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Jun 17, 2006, at 2:01 AM, CPHennessy wrote:

I will try to help keep those tasks as developer oriented as possible. 
One
problem I obviously had was trying to interpret the citation 
requirements in

terms of actual C++ code and OpenOffice.org design.


Sounds great CPH; had a feeling you might have something useful to 
contribute in just this area.


I still have relatively little time, but I should be able to help a 
small bit
with this task. (Hopefully this may not preclude me from participating 
in

bounty hunting in a few months if my free time becomes more abundant :)


:-)

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] funding (was Bibliographic Issues should be added to the marketing strategy)

2006-06-17 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Jun 17, 2006, at 2:01 AM, CPHennessy wrote:

I will try to help keep those tasks as developer oriented as possible. 
One
problem I obviously had was trying to interpret the citation 
requirements in

terms of actual C++ code and OpenOffice.org design.


Come to think of it, one way for you to help would be for you to write 
up what you think needs to be done for the most important bits, and 
attach a reasonable target amount to it (or to each piece if more 
appropriate).


To get things started, if *I* were writing the former, I'd say:

1)  read, display and write new OpenDocument citation field (we haven't 
used the term field to describe it yet, but we may as well start; 
that's what it is)


2)  expose a citation API

I think those are the most critical, and the rest is somewhat flexible. 
I'd still like to hold out some possibility of using citeproc XSLT 
directly rather than having to port it, for example, as MS has done 
with their formatting approach.


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] funding (was Bibliographic Issues should be added to the marketing strategy)

2006-06-16 Thread Bruce D'Arcus

I like the pledge idea too, though perhaps before doing that we ought
to come up with the most important tasks, and some rough target
amount?

Also, I wonder if a project like Edubuntu might not be helpful
someway? The homepage says they will be tragetting higher ed in the
future, and their founder has quite a history driving (and funding)
free software.

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] Word 2007: GUI config

2006-06-15 Thread Bruce D'Arcus

More explorations:

The Word 2007 bibliographic source editing GUI is all configured with 
XML. There's a single file that includes all the information needed to 
create the GUI, and then transform the results into the proper XML.


I've been saying for awhile that it'd be nice if OOo's XForms support 
could be used like this.


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Bibliographic Issues should be added to the marketing strategy

2006-06-14 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Jun 14, 2006, at 2:49 AM, David Wilson wrote:


y University's IT department distributes
OpenOffce for free, but the Academic departments recommend students use
Endnotes for bibliographic management.


Minor correction: Endnote, not Endnotes.

Until recently OpenOffice could claim to at least have bibliographic 
some
support whilst MS Word did not have any. The situation is now 
reversed. Word

2007  has significantly better bibliographic support than OpenOffice.


Strongly underline this point.

Given this situation I propose that a fifth dot point be added to this 
list-


[...]


In terms of the higher Education market bibliographic support is not
'feature', it is a strategic requirement. If we do not have it we are 
not in

it.


I have to say, I've about lost all faith in OOo. The community (ahem, 
let's be specific: Sun) seems really not to understand or care about 
what we are trying to do, and even the generic requirements we have to 
make it technically easier for developers to implement seems not to be 
a priority. Even worse, I have no sense of a community process that 
actually sets these priorities.


The reality is Word is a better word processor than Writer, it is used 
by 99% of the people in my field (I have literally never heard of 
anyone who uses OpenOffice, but simply assume there are one or two out 
there), and it will now have really good built-in citation support.  So 
why would even I or anyone else in higher ed bother with OOo?


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Re: Re: Bibliographic Issues should be added to the marketing strategy

2006-06-14 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Jun 14, 2006, at 6:07 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:

That's nice, except that unless you will be done (who will implement 
new ODF
citation support in OOo?), you will have no useable bibliographic 
support
in OpenOffice.org, no users, and no push on Sun to do something about 
it.


Right; chicken-and-egg.

Clearly someone at Sun, and/or a non-Sun person with serious C++ skills 
(like CPH) needs to do it.


However, it can mean different things. It could mean that Sun 
developers, for example, improve the generic infrastructure 
(particularly around fields) so that it is easier for outsiders to then 
implement the specific code (in this case citations).  Indeed, there 
has been private discussions about just this with people at Sun, going 
back at least a year, if not two. No resolution though (and no news in 
fact).


As it is, CPH started implementing the citation improvements without 
that enhanced generic support, but got tied up with other (paid) work. 
Such is life in open source land.


And then, of ocurse, we had a Google SOC application ready to implement 
it, but nobody outside this project voted for it.


On the brighter side, as soon as we get that and the API implemented, I 
think things will pick up significantly. But it seems that's sort of a 
big initial hill to climb.


I'm sorry, but I feel strongly about this: there is no other reasonable 
way. The low-level design is just wrong, and it has to be redone.


To understand what it might mean from a user perspective, go try out 
the latest beta of Word 2007. Notwithstanding some of problems I've 
noted on the blog, it has a level of integrated elegance that goes far 
beyond what is possible with the current OOo code. Want to add a 
bibliography? Just select your style from a pull-down list; it's 
automatically added. Want to change the citation style? Just select 
from another list and everything is reformatted in real-time.


It's not that this stuff is rocket science, and that MS is somehow 
brilliant. They took the same approach we have been planning. It's just 
that some executive or manager somewhere at MS just said let's 
prioritize higher ed in the next release and people made it happen.


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] What is the current state of CSL / Citreproc

2006-06-14 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Jun 14, 2006, at 7:33 PM, pt wrote:

Bruce, and others who have been helping, can you give the list an 
update of where CSL and citeproc are at? I remember seeing some stuff 
about Python and Ruby code, but didn't have much time to think about 
it.


Hey, David just pinged me about this off-list. My answer on citeproc:


The Ruby one is much developed than the Python, and the XSLT MUCH more 
developed than the Ruby. I wouldn't bother with either at this point 
frankly.


If we get Saxon 8 bundled with OOo (the Sun guy responsible for this 
was considering it), citeproc would work there. I know there's the 
whole Java issue, but maybe a better first step at least, and with Word 
2007, there's now precedent!  And OOo needs to get its act together on 
XSLT.



The subversion versions of CSL and citeproc are now in sync, and I've 
transitioned to using the sort of RDF format I'm wanting to standardize 
in ODF. I'm still contemplating some changes to CSL, though I think I 
may only bother with that if I can gather some support (from 
publishers, and maybe MS) for standardizing CSL.


I'm thinking about using EndNote for managing a database, even with 
the known limitations. Citation markers will just be hyperlinks, not 
EndNote's so to cite in a word processor you would just link to 
something - ideally a record in an Institutional repository, or a 
local webserver whith all your research stuff in it, but could be to a 
library system, Amazon, whatever. You would need to have a URL for 
every item in the endnote library - not too hard these days. Would 
then use endnote export - Mods and use Citeproc to format a 
bibliography and the citations, using the URL as a key (hyperlink 
would remain so the citations can be re-formatted).


I'd suggest using uris in general. For reference, here's what my 
DocBook citations look like these days:


citation
  biblioref xlink:href=urn:isbn:4563-1276/
/citation

That allows you to resolve the identifiers against any manner of 
sources.


Other examples from my collection:

http://www.users.muohio.edu/darcusb/meta/references/books


They key component here is citeproc, hence my question.


Check it out from SVN and let me know if you get stuck.

http://sourceforge.net/svn/?group_id=117435

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] more on citations in Word

2006-06-13 Thread Bruce D'Arcus
I've been blogging a lot about the Word citation support; latest is  
mostly about the GUI:


http://netapps.muohio.edu/blogs/darcusb/darcusb/archives/2006/06/13/ 
multi-reference-citations-in-word-2007


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] lessons for ODF/OOo?

2006-06-09 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


Sorry for cross-posting, but this is a fairly broad topic ...

I wonder, does what MS is doing with Word 2007 and OXML and citations  
have any lessons for ODF and OOo?


They are a step away from implementing what we've been advocating for  
the past couple of years for ODF and OOo (e.g. citation and  
bibliographic support that is far superior to that currently in OOo),  
and they are doing it mostly using generic XML (fields, and the custom  
schema support) and programming structures. There's been talk of some  
of this in OOo, but nothing has happened.


See my analysis:

http://netapps.muohio.edu/blogs/darcusb/darcusb/archives/2006/06/08/ 
citations-in-open-xml


http://netapps.muohio.edu/blogs/darcusb/darcusb/archives/2006/06/09/ 
citation-formatting-in-word-2007


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] citation/bib support in Word 2007

2006-06-07 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Jun 6, 2006, at 9:08 PM, Matt Price wrote:


On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 06:26:57PM -0400, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
Just found out today that MS is offering citation and bib support in  
Word

2007.

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/ 
ms406055.aspx#office2007wordwhatsnew_othernewfeatures


Still trying to find out the details, and if there's a way we can have
good interoperability with ODF.


ah well.  we should have been first, now we'll be playing catchup 
have a significant lag behind them.  lost opportunity! On the other
hand, I suppose we'll probably need an improved bibliographic
component if OOo is to be able to handle word 2007 docs...  so I
suppose that will help prod the Sun folks into action.


I managed to track down some more info, though still have questions  
about details. My initial conclusion is that it SEEMS that their bib  
support will be only marginally superior to the existing OOo bib  
support. They avoided one or two mistakes the StarOffice team made  
(they store the bib data separate from the content file, which is what  
we will be doing in the future), but not all of them (the data model  
looks to be based on BibTeX, and it's unclear to me whether they've  
designed it for anything but science types).


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] short-to-medium-term

2006-05-29 Thread Bruce D'Arcus

On 5/26/06, David Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


I agree, I have these listed on the Developer wiki page. But we probably need
to add some step-by-step instructions. Otherwise it is a big task to sort out
what to do.


Yeah, I think we've started the process; just need to finish it. The
end result is that the main pages need to be really tight and clear.


Maybe we will have to set up fund for bounties. But who will contribute ?


This is where some institutional help would be valuable, as I'm not
sure a handful of individuals contributing bits and pieces will go
very far (?). I recall that Mark Shuttleworth has done a lot of this,
and has an edu initiative (ubuntu edu), though it is aimed at
sub-university levels.

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Fwd: Summer of Code : 6 Projects Above the Line

2006-05-24 Thread Bruce D'Arcus

On 5/23/06, Matt Price [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Is there someone one might write to about the importance of this task?
 I think if the coding team understood (a) the extent to which current
bibliographic functions block adoption by academics, and (b) the
importance of educational markets in adoption of new software,
then there'd be a somewhat different valuation of priorities (e.g., a native 
SQLite
driver would be great, but I doubt we'll pick up a whole lot of new
users that way!).


We know who to talk to, and have.

However, you are assuming above the same thing that I once assumed:
that large corporations like Sun care about this market. I don¨t think
they do. If you were a cash-strapped corporation looking for
oppoertunities to make more cash, would you prioritize edu?

Not trying to be a downer; just to give a sense of what we are up against.

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] update on modelling

2006-04-21 Thread Bruce D'Arcus
On 4/21/06, David Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I notice you have converted role (Author, Editor etc)  from a table of role
 types , in earlier models,  to a field in Contributions in this model. I
 think it there should be a table. Even if it was not linked into the database
 it could used for the pick-list for the user interface and could be thus
 extended without programming  changes.

Yeah, it's just that Rails has out-of-box for this sort of
subclassing, where by default if there's a type column, it uses that
to create the objects.

I agree ultimately it'd probably be better to store those in their own
tables. Am just not there yet.

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[dev-biblio] FRBR (was Re: embedded references/functional requirements wiki page)

2006-04-07 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Apr 6, 2006, at 10:52 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:


Bruce D'Arcus wrote:

David and I both spent time working with FRBR, which you might be
interested in.


What's FRBR?


http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.htm
http://purl.org/vocab/frbr/core

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Re: Re: embedded references/functional requirements wiki page

2006-04-05 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Apr 5, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Matt Price wrote:


should it be a little more extensive here?  so for instnace:  I am
extremely disorganized, and in the absence of a satisfactory
bibliogrpahic solution have dealt with various bibs in the last few
years.  On one paper I use one bib, for another project I may have a
wholly different one.  So shouldthe uri be:

   person:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:SOME_HASH_HERE:smith99


I'm not really sure exactly what it should be, but yeah, it'd take some 
thought.



I should also add that using uris for association is likely what will
be the outcome of the metadata work at the ODF TC. It provides a
standard and general mechanism to link content and metadata.

How's that?


do you guys have some docs on this emerging standard?


It's not emerging; it's already widely used:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Resource_Identifier

See how examples like RDF and XLink use uris for linking. One example 
of the former relevant to this discussion:


http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/06/02/dijalog.html

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Re: Re: embedded references/functional requirements wiki page

2006-04-05 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Apr 5, 2006, at 2:24 PM, Matthias Steffens wrote:

However, when I'm writing a paper, 95% of the cited references do 
already exist in my bibliographic database and I want to use these 
(and not a copy from somewhere else) since I know that I've verified 
my own entries for correctness (multiple times). The same cannot be 
said for any remotely fetched data and I'd need to check each entry 
for correctness. This is just an example.


OK, but I take it you're using RefBase; a single database?

What do you do for Matt, who has different databases, where the same 
reference has different local db numbers and cite keys?


FWIW, the way Endnote handles this is that citations include author and 
year, so if it can't find the proper record by id, it uses those to 
present users choices.



My point is here that it really depends on the user's specific needs.


True.


Thus, the solution should be to simply allow for both methods.


OK.

Ideally, multiple identifiers would be stored and sent to the 
bibliographic database which could then decide what to do.


Yes, ideally. But I'm not sure how practical that is (to get 
implemented).


One logic could be: If the database-dependent information (username, 
cite key, local record ID) can be resolved, prefer this method to 
fetch the user's personal entry, otherwise try to fetch the data from 
trusted sources (such as LoC) using the database-independent 
identifiers.


I think I'd separate this out further:

1) how to identify (local vs. universal id)
2) how to locate (generic vs. user-based)

As I said before, one could use an isbn-based uri to grab a record from 
a local db.


My sense is that we could have rules and configuration options to set 
these options. Am not exactly sure what they'd be, but it probably 
wouldn't be too hard to figure out. Maybe:


For identifying citations, use:

universal identifiers (enhances portability)
user-specific labels

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Re: Re: embedded references/functional requirements wiki page

2006-04-05 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Apr 5, 2006, at 6:06 PM, Matthias Steffens wrote:


I'd also perhaps default to my database and user account, with
options to ping other servers if data is missing.


Yes, exactly!


Wouldn't that solve the problems with the best balance of concerns?


Yes.


So do the two yes responses suggest I don't need to respond to the 
previous objections?


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] develop parallel application to test toolchain and api?

2006-04-05 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Apr 5, 2006, at 6:59 PM, James Howison wrote:

I may be crazy, but has anyone considered building a 
'proof-of-concept' _application_ that works similarly to the way 
intended for OOo?  Yes, developing it outside OOo, but using the 
future file format as much as possible (obviously not doing the rich 
formatting etc, but getting the mechanics of the citation processing 
down)


It seems to me that the grounding of developing a working system would 
help the great discussions that are happening now---sometimes it is 
just simpler to see it in code. It also seems that the complexity and 
dependancies inherent in working with the OOo base are holding back 
the project.


Yeah, that makes sense, though I'd point point out that pieces like 
citeproc are exactly this sort of proof-of-concept. So it can be 
figuring out smaller pieces ...


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Minimal Target

2006-04-04 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Apr 4, 2006, at 3:46 PM, Matt Price wrote:


Seems to me it would be useful to define several targets --
say minimal, intermediate, and polished and lay out what needs to
be done for each.


Sure.


Minimal Bibliographic Interface

Target Goals:  Allow expert users to insert useful citations by (a)
creating durable citation infrastructure within sw; (b) designing a new
bibliographic database structure; (c) creating a minimal interface 
which

uses citeproc to link (a) and (b).

Obviously missing functionality:  aiblity to create and modify database
directly within OOo.  It is a ssumed that database management per se
will take place through an existing interface (endnote, bibus, or the
like) and be funnelled through some kind of filter to produce a native
bibliography.


I'm a little confused here. I would say minimal support might be able 
to throw out the database altogether and provide an API to plug-in 
different reference management solutions.


Is that what you are saying, or are you saying that database management 
should be part of this minimal support?


So for me the different levels would support:

minimal

1)  new citation coding
2)  formatting processing via citeproc (or equivalent)
3)  API for third-party access (inserting citations)

intermediate

adds:
4)  local database
5)  full new editing GUI for 4

advanced

adds:
6)  more advanced remote functionality (ZOOM; though this might relate 
to 3 above, and probably should)



Tasks:

(1) Modify the sw code to enable citation data to be saved and
displayed, to making citations avialable by UNO hooks. (these are CPH's
'1-4' of an earlier post.)  Assigned to CPH.

(2) Complete design of database.  Not assigned

(3) port Citeproc to python. Not assigned.
-
1-3 can be worked on simultaneously and starting from now, I reckon.
-


Correct. One thing we have to decide now is the relationship between 
data and formatting. If the data source for formatting is embedded 
XML/RDF, then the database per se becomes less critical.


[note: I see you just posted something on this Matt; will probably 
respond there]



(4) build filters to generate database records and xml/rdf metadata
records from MODS datasets.  THis might be conceived as an extension to
bibutils?


Yeah, and I might be able to see if Chris can help us on that.

However, I'd put the above slightly differently in that MODS datasets 
are one possible input format. By using something like bibutils, we 
also get support for RIS, Refer/Endnote, BibTeX, etc.



(5) build a UNO application that provides a graphic user interface to
the bibliographic data, allowing insertion and (per-document) 
formatting

of citation data).  This involves


...?


-
4 will probably be tricky in its particulars but it might be possible 
to

get something basic off the ground quite quickly.

5 seems to me a good candidate for a Summer Of Code or other ambitious
programming project.


Yes.

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Minimal Target

2006-04-04 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Apr 4, 2006, at 9:58 PM, Matt Price wrote:


ah.  that's really excellent, thank you.  This also pointed me to
wiki/Bibliographic_Document_XML_Format which I had skimmed over
before, but is now much clearer to me.


FYI, I just changed the bib example to reflect the current direction of  
where I hope ODF is headed:


http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ 
Bibliographic_Document_XML_Format#biblo-data.xml


I have to say the changes to the file format look so simple and  
manifestly superior to the current

setup that it's astonishing they haven't been approved yet.


Well, big companies move slowly, and they don't want to make changes  
specific to our project when more general solutions can be found. Those  
take time.


Also CiteProc is working right now using data stored in an eXist xml  
database.
The quickest way to build something that works would be to build a  
xforms

based browser to work with eXist and a function to inset the selected
citation into Writer.



I know nothing about Xforms.  Is this something that could be built,
as it were, from within OOo?  Or are you talking about a separate
application?


OOo has built in XForms support in 2.0. The problem is it's really  
designed for end users.


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Re: [users-biblio] Work documents on the wiki.

2006-03-31 Thread Bruce D'Arcus
I just went through and added comments throughout the requirements. I 
do think it still could use a fair bit of editing and maybe 
reorganization. I feel like we need to cut it down by about 50%, which 
mostly means consolidating and sharpening.


It strikes me some of the requirements are in fact use cases.

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Re: [users-biblio] Work documents on the wiki.

2006-03-30 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Mar 30, 2006, at 5:41 PM, Matt Price wrote:


Also very nice to have the Functional Requirements page up.  I wonder
though whether it might not be a good idea to start prioritizing all
these tasks.


I agree. I think we need to first clean up the formatting, and then 
work at streamlining everything.



Would (5) and (6), which Bruce calls a separate chunk of code that
would  use the UNO interface, be a logical next step after CPH does
104?  What form do folks think it should take?


My interest in porting citeproc to other languages is to prototype 
this, and gain the experience we need to figure out how best to do 
this.



Alternatively, would it make most sense to design the bibliographic
database next -- since there are so few C coders here, but many people
with some database experience?


Yes, I think so. David and I have talked about this a bit off-list, and 
I have an early version of an SQL schema up here:


http://svn.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.cgi/xbiblio/bib-sql/

Feel free to post comments about it here, or otherwise help.

I met a guy on the db list who is a database expert and member of the 
core PostreSQL development team. He is willing to help us refine this, 
which would be really good (nothing like having an expert help out in 
key stuff like this).


I'm also playing with an AJAX-based Rails app based on the schema ;-)


I'm just thinking that if we (I know the first person is a bit iffy
here, as I'm hardly active) can start parcelling the project up a bit
better, we might find that there are a fair number of bits that non-C
programmers can work on.


Yes. Well, CPH did ask for help with the user list, which is pretty 
much non-technical. So that's a perfect opportunity for non-coders to 
help.


But beyond that, I think focusing on the data model and formatting code 
(including helping me make sure CSL is everything it should be*) is a 
good place to being for those of us without C++ skills (which is almost 
everyone on this list!).


Bruce

* I still may create a proposal to bake the logic of CSL directly into 
ODF, so all the more important.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Re: [users-biblio] Work documents on the wiki.

2006-03-30 Thread Bruce D'Arcus
On 3/30/06, Matt Price [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  My interest in porting citeproc to other languages is to prototype
  this, and gain the experience we need to figure out how best to do
  this.
 
 can you expand on this?  e.g. would it be helpful if I tried to work
 up a python port (this will happen relativley slowly till at least the
 end of May though)?

Yes. There's a citeproc-py placeholder at the xbib svn repo:

http://svn.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.cgi/xbiblio/

My coding skills are limited, though, so I've been slowly (!) working
on the Ruby port because it's a more intuitve language for me. But a
Python version would be better for OOo anyway, with the Python UNO
binding.

Probably the best place to start is to finish the unit tests and make
sure the Ruby and Python versions have equivalent APIs.

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Bibliographic Table processing

2006-03-27 Thread Bruce D'Arcus
On 3/27/06, David Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I assume to refers to the  Bibliography xml structure which defines the
 Bibliographic Tables' data fields, their order and their character formating
 and punctuation between the fields. This structure is only indirectly
 associated with bibliographic entries (citations) inserted in the document -
 in that it refers to the same field names. But it is not used or needed in
 the citation entry process.

So I guess I was looking in the wrong place.  Do you know where the
correct place is?

Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Some citation questions

2006-03-26 Thread Bruce D'Arcus


On Mar 25, 2006, at 10:11 PM, David Wilson wrote:


There is the case where some styles have a first (more detailed) and
subsequent (less detailed) format for citations.


Right, but that's a global issue. The citation code that CPH is working 
on need not understand that.


It is important for the formatting code to be able to know, however, 
that a given citation is first or subsequent.


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev-biblio] Bibliographic Table processing

2006-03-26 Thread Bruce D'Arcus

On Mar 25, 2006, at 11:11 PM, David Wilson wrote:


Some time ago, some one, it might have been  CPHennessy, asked about
bibliographic table  (reference table) generation and if the current  
process

could work with the new Citeproc formating process.


I find worrying about the GUI at this point confusing.

What is a bibliography? It's just a list of formatted references  
(metadata descriptions).


A citation is a pointer to the references.

In some cases, however, there is no bibliography, and a citation is a  
full reference entry.


See, for example:

http://xbiblio.sourceforge.net/citeproc/examples/chicago-note-a- 
en.html


So the question of whether the existing support can just be  
adapted/extended rests on this question: how, internally, are the  
references currently formatted?


If there is something like a bibliographic reference class, and there  
are methods that format a reference object's contents independent of  
the bibliography, then my guess is it would work. We could just build  
on that.


In my Ruby citeproc port, I have two main classes:

1) ReferenceList

It's just an array, plus some methods to handle grouping, sorting, and  
formatting, where the last is mostly just calling a formatting method  
from ...


2) Reference

This is what it sounds like, and it has a formatting method that  
handles the formatting specific to an entry. Also, the content of this  
object might get modified based on processing within the ReferenceList.


I haven't yet gotten to citations, but it would work similarly.

3) CitationList

An array that contains a list o citation objects, which is in turn used  
to generate the ReferenceList object (1). This object is created by  
scanning the document for citations, of course, and so is part of what  
CPH is working on.


4) Citation

An array of biblioref objects. This needs to replace the current  
bibliography text field.


http://api.openoffice.org/docs/common/ref/com/sun/star/text/textfield/ 
Bibliography.html


5) Biblioref

Just contains the id for the reference, as well as optional additional  
information like page number(s), or local style.


In that sort of structure, then, you can have a process periodically  
update/regenerate these objects, and formatting a bibliography ought to  
just involve a simple method call that inserts the formatted list into  
the table/index.


Likewise for citations.

After having the written the above, I went back and hunted for the  
relevant API documentation (I started to do this awhile back, but got  
distracted).


Anyway, here's the relevant page:

http://api.openoffice.org/docs/common/ref/com/sun/star/text/ 
BibliographyDataField.html


OK, good news:

There is, in fact, a reference class. It's very limited, just being a  
series of key/values*, but at least it's there. I would hope that the  
current ODF TC discussions to enhance metadata support might end up  
with a better, more generic, mechanism for this, but that's not  
strictly necessary.


Bad news:

I might be wrong, but it seems that the current design assumes one  
would always have a bibliography. The description, for example, says:


These values define parts of bibliographic data. They are used to  
create a bibliography in a text document.


As I show above, this is not always the case.

Anyone (particularly from Sun) have any suggestions on how to tackle  
this?


Bruce

* Bibliographic metadata is relational in nature, so having simple  
attributes like journal that reflect a flat data structure is very  
limiting. Better is if that information is captured in something like a  
partOf attribute that stores a reference to another object, which  
happens to be a journal.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



  1   2   >