Re: [dev-biblio] Re: [users-biblio] JabRef - OpenOffice integration
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007, Leonard Mada wrote: I strongly suggest moving this page to a new location, something like: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Bibliographic_Project/Plugins/Zote ro instead of creating such orphaned pages. Leonard, Thanks for the the suggestion. When I started the wiki pages I just copied what most other people were doing - which was a flat file structure with any hierarchy built using category links. I can see there advantages in moving to a hierarchical directory organisation. Are there any objections to my restructuring the wiki pages in this way ? regards David On Sun, 9 Dec 2007, Leonard Mada wrote: All bibliographic wiki-pages should be ultimately moved below the top-level page 'Bibliographic_Project'. I hope nobody gets annoyed by this quibbling about the wiki-structure. As you know, I am rather focused on the hierarchical organisation of data (http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Bib-Keywords), and this makes sense. It becomes much easier to navigate such sites, see e.g. http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer/ToDo/Layout/Multi_Page_Layo ut where one easily can navigate back to the top-level Writer page. [http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer] I hope therefore, that all project leads will enforce this style and improve existing wikis by moving orphaned pages below the top-level project's wiki-page. Sincerely, Leonard regards David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice.org Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] Re: [users-biblio] JabRef - OpenOffice integration
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: 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 As a start, I have set up a wiki page to assist in the managing of Zotero plugin issues. There is not much there yet and I invite interested people to add to it. http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Zotero_Plugin regards David -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice.org Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] Re: [users-biblio] JabRef - OpenOffice integration
I largely different with Bruce, and encourage the development of Bibliographic applications that can effectively interact with OpenOffice. I differ from Bruce in not yet being fully convinced that we should abandon the idea of building a native integrated bibliographic facility in to OpenOffice. However, whilst some Bibliographic enhancements ARE scheduled for OpenOffice version 3. ( http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Features ). There is no date set for this release, although I would hazard a guess for mid to late 2008. Also there is as yet no decision as to the Bibliographic features that would be included in that release. We know that the Writer development team has rather limited development resources and as a OOo Project. Thus third solution for a usable bibliographic facility now or in the near future. 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. Maybe applications like Zotero will solve these problems (they are being discussed on the Zotero development wiki) and if they can solve them then my desire for an integrated bibliographic application may well be weakened. Regarding deprecate the existing citation and bib support ASAP, I have never considered it usable, and would be happy to see it gone. A list member recently pointed out to me that my first enhancement request that started this project #5038, was filed 1999 days ago by yours truly . and that it makes me wonder if we'll see any working implementation before I retire (in about 15 years). I have not yet given up hope. I urge all the list members to to contact any skilled developers that they know who may be interesting in working on this project. A couple of skilled and committed programmers could really accelerate this project. Otherwise we completely are at the mercy of the priorities and limitations of the SUN Writer development team. regards david On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: 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] -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice.org Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] Some Considerations for Bibliographic Management
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TWiMC, Perhaps some of the issues of the following Zotero thread may also be pertinent to the OOo Bib. project (specifically: permitting for the selection of and retention of disparate fonts and font sizes within citations as well as citation prefixes and suffixes): http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/907/word-pluginzotero-feature-request-f l exible-commentary-in-footnotes-via-flexible-fonts/ Respectfully submitted, clip. Clip, 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. Each of the citation elements author name, title etc, would be in formatted text field - 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. A difficulty arises when you want to export this highly formatted bibliographic data or try to integrate with a third-party package like Zotero. To deal with the complex text formatting Zotero would have support most of OOo Writer's text formatting functions itself ! which is clearly not feasible. It could called on OOo services to display and edit the citations, (and a similar process for MS Word) but then you have the all the problems with conversion of WP formats and exporting or using your bibliographic database to a machine with no compatible WP. Zotero would cease being a standalone package. If Zotero wanted to implement some font and character formatting it could pass this text to OOo Writer or MS Word in HTML or RTF formats. A partial solution to the Zotero OOo Writer integration might be that when the user inserts a Zotero sourced citation (in a simple text string format) the user can then do the complex font modifications to the text in Writer, and we try and make the database update function 'intelligent' enough that in updating it attempts to maintain the user font/character formatting. Which could work if the database changes were small spelling corrections, but changing the word order and spelling of your Greek and Aramaic words might defeat such an update system and the user would have to do manual corrections. regards David -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice.org Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] feedback needed on citation formatting
On Wednesday 21 March 2007 7:39 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: 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? It may be. Footnote citations are also in two forms, the long form for Initial Citations, the short form for Subsequent Citations so the suggested format seems to work for that case. 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. 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. It was issues like these that led me to think that Bibliography Service API would need to be supplied with- b:Book rdf:about=urn:isbn:34982376:123-128 #An entry for each ref/location b:citationDoe, 1999:123-128/b:citation #Also Initial Citation b:shortCitaton1999:123-128/b:shortCitaiton # Also Subsequent Citation b:CitationLocation:123-128/b:CitationLocation b:CitationAuthorNameDoe/b:CitationAuthorName b:CitationDate1999/b:CitationDate b:IbidTextIbid./b:IbidText ... /b:Book Thus suppressing date or author, or locator becomes a simple string matching action. And Ibid. with location is IbidText + CitationLocation, as in 'Ibid., 123-128' Shifting locator formatting to the WP interface simplifies the CiteProc requirements to b:Book rdf:about=urn:isbn:34982376 b:citationDoe, 1999/b:citation #Also Initial Citation b:shortCitaton1999/b:shortCitaiton # Also Subsequent Citation b:CitationAuthorNameDoe/b:CitationAuthorName b:CitationDate1999/b:CitationDate b:IbidTextIbid./b:IbidText ... /b:Book at the cost of building a mini CiteProc for locator formatting into the WP interface or having a separate requestLocatorFormatting service for CiteProc to perform whenever a new or change location is added: I think the latter may be the best option. David -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice.org Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org --- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] feedback needed on citation formatting
On Wednesday 21 March 2007 11:23 am, Bruce D'Arcus 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. Or do you mean having the functions of 'Suppress Author Name' and 'Suppress Date' but without the use of flags in calling the Citeproc formatting services ? David -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice.org Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev-biblio] Re: zotero and OOo
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: My colleague David Wilson has posted the requirements he sees (though I've had time to look at them in depth), and I've noted that ZOOM may well provide a ready made API complete with freely available code. I have posted the basic requirement (as I have able to conceive them so far) for two options. Option 1 is the way most 3rd party bibliographic applications work with word processors. I think this is how Zotero works with MS Word (I do not have MS Word to test it). Option 2 would provide a unified User Interface which could support plug-in bibliographic engines. It requires a lot more software building work on the WP side. 1. The Bibliographic Application handles the Citation management and citation selection. Each citation is pushed into the word processor document at the current cursor location via a command on the Bibliographic Application. 2. The Word Processor handles citation selection and optionally some the citation management functions. The reference list is requested from the Bibliographic Application, it is displayed on the WP using it own browser panel, and the user selects the citation(s) to be inserted from list.The WP then requests the formatted citation text from the Bibliographic Application for display. http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Bibliographic_Services_API Comments and improvements to this wiki page are encouraged. David -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice.org Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - 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
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: 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 I will work on it today. David Bruce - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice.org Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - 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
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: On Feb 11, 2007, at 4:11 PM, David Wilson wrote: I will work on it today. OK, just to be clear, we're laying out the requirements fro a cross-application API. It would be used to assess whether ZOOM is good as is, whether it needs to be adapted, or we need something else. It seem KOffice might be interested in implementing it too. Bruce I have put my first ideas about the cross-application API on the wiki and I will continue to develop it there. http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Bibliographic_Services_API Comments and additions improvements are welcome. david -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice.org Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] smarttags in OOo
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, 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 ? http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS/entry/successful_community_project_smart_tags CPH, It is good news that Smart Tags seem to be progressing as I view the smart tags as one of the essential elements that will make for possible for the new new bibliographic facility to built as a Extension Project. This seems to be the general view as the Bibliographic Project is now listed under 'Extension Projects' on the projects web page ( http://projects.openoffice.org/index.html ). Using Smart Tags will make it possible for developers using the Extension Toolkit to define new tags in the document, or use existing tags in new ways, and add plug-in extension code to handle those tags, with the specific context and system menus. ( http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Extensions ) This method will greatly aid our project because our developers will not need to learn how to make changes to the huge and complex OpenOffice code base, but will be able to work with the much simpler Extension Toolkit in C++, python or java. This is a skill set that should be much easier to recruit. regards David -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice.org Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] important question
Bruce, Support for formal local style seems a good idea. Do we need to consider at this point the issue of options of footnote citations ? If yes then 'formal local style' selection that includes variants with exclusions could handle much of that complexity and take it away from the GUI panel. Footnote citation options are - *Force Short/long title, *Suppress Publisher regards David On Thursday 25 January 2007 9:14 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: On Jan 24, 2007, at 4:37 PM, David Wilson wrote: Ibidem has several other insert citation options including - a custom, manual entry for this instance only. See: http://bibliographic.openoffice.org/screenImages/ IbidemDescription_html_m6ca0a53b.gif I do not propose that we blindly follow all the features of Ibidem but we should consider if they are worth supporting. Thanks guys. But, I'm overwhelmed with other work, so it would help if you could provide a list of reasonable values, instead of pointing me to sources of further research. :-) Right now I only see year-only and author-only) or some such. WRT to the prefix thing that James mentioned, I've long wondered whether that ought to be a text string (already supported) or a formal local style. I can see logic for the latter, given that if you have multi-reference citations, they often need to be sorted, and see and see also citation would need to be grouped and sorted independent of the primary reference(s). Bruce - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev-biblio] Fwd: OpenOffice.org Survey
FYI If you are interested you could support Tobias' research. -- Forwarded Message -- Subject: OpenOffice.org Survey Date: Saturday 04 November 2006 6:51 am From: Tobias Brenner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear project leaders, my name is Tobias Brenner and I'm studying sociology at the university of Munich. As I've always been interested in Open Office and Open Source Software in general, I decided to write my dissertation about that. For my exploration I've created a short questionary about the motivation and organisation of the members of the OpenOffice.org Project.You would do me a great favour, if you could forward the link to the questionary to as many team members as possible after having filled it out yourself. Here is the link to my questionary: http://www.open-source-survey.com/Umfrage/index.html Thank you so much. Best regards Tobias Brenner --- -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] default db should be empty
Perhaps a compromise would be to have only one entry in the database, to show that it works and is easier (if you do not know the select delete record process) to remove. Most mail apps came with a welcome mail message. David On Thursday 26 October 2006 4:55 am, Matthias Basler wrote: Bruce wrote: I have never come across any database application that prefills content, unless perhaps it's generic content like country codes or whatever in a relational db (not relevant here, because a flat db). My guess is these sample books exist mainly for a psychological reason: If there are books in the database then people know it is working. If, instead people visit the bibliographic database for the first time and just see an empty table and a lot(!) of empty fields below, this might be enough to drive some simple souls off saying I dont' know where to start. Moreover, I don't recall ever meeting anyone who actually uses the existing bibliographic support. As you might remember I used it for my thesis, although not always in the way the designers of if intended it to be used. ;-) -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev-biblio] Re: [sw-discussion] default db should be empty
On Tuesday 24 October 2006 3:44 am, you wrote: But if it is really disturbing, we have some protocols for changing a feature in OOo .. this usually start by reporting an issue. (So that the change is trackable) http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=70760 Remove the sample content in the bibliographic database. david --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] For your reading pleasure ...
On Tuesday 24 October 2006 4:43 am, you wrote: The more I think about it, my half-hearted suggestion for a feature prohibiting saving a document with (recommended core) meta data blanks might not be so harsh. It is partly there already - the option Edit document properties before saving in Tools-Options-Load/Save-General This off by default. When it is on, the document properties dialog appears the first time you save the file. It does not force you add any text though. It just makes you feel guilty for being lazy when you press cancel. 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. David -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] For your reading pleasure ...
On Monday 23 October 2006 7:38 am, Gannon Dick wrote: You do start to lose me just a little bit when you talk about a generic API for meta data. For reasons outlined here ... http://www.geocities.com/gannon_dick/TheBigPicture.pdf (case sensitive) I believe that a meta data API needs a required core of elements. When all is said and done, and at least where meta data is concerned, the appearance of information is not information. Re-formats/rewrites don't do harm, but they don't do much good either. My fear is that a generic API would fail to put proper emphasis on key (independent/isolated/monatomic) elements. Currently, I understand that Metadata API has the metadata elements hardcoded so that if you wanted to add a new document metadata element 'Sponser' you need to change the code and the UI panel to add it in. If you wanted to add metadata for graphics would would to build new API for that. The ODF metadata enhancements will provide the ability to tag document elements with metadata. Rather than build many hardcode metadata API modules - document-metadata, graphic-metadata, chart-metadata, text-section-metadata, it is proposed to have 'generic API for meta data' as convenience for the developers and writes of extension / add-on modules. A generic API makes no assumptions about what metadata elements will be included in the default set. That is a separate issue. (The OOo2DBK add-on module I mentioned yesterday - adds about 100 document metadata elements for French government requirements. It uses user-defined fields rather than the limited document metadata functions) I do not really seen how a API can put proper emphasis on key (independent/isolated/monatomic) elements. We are talking about about code as basic as file-open, file-read, file-close. This is more a content and application design issue. I understand your fear - often 'generic support' is code for no support at all or 'if you want it you can add it in yourself'. This not we we intend. A bit like the well know 'limited only by your imagination' which means no knows how to use it. David -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] generic structured fields, citations
Jakob I have been reading the Extensions project documentation http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Extensions . I get the impression that what you are trying to should be possible. It might be that you need to add two OObasic macros - one that initialise/opens your file at document open and one that closes/saves your document at document close ? It might be worth putting you question to the extensions list. David On Thursday 19 October 2006 10:42 pm, Jakob Lechner wrote: Hello, On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 08:53 -0400, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: See the archive I have attached to the message archived at this link. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-metadata/200608/msg00016.htm l 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. Looks good, that's quite similar how we are planning to include metadata in odt archives. I have been working on another project but now I'll be concentrating on the metadata project again. Actually I have to implement some sort of prototype as fast as possible because we need it for a presentation. As discussed earlier we want to include xml metadata in odt archives and implement fields that can read and modify the content of a given tag of the xml structure. So the field actually needs a reference to the xml file it is linked to and a reference to a tag within that xml file (this reference could be a xpath expression). The field could stored in the content.xml file like this: text:xml-field text:name=field1 xlink:href=customXml/item1.xml xpath=/contacts[0]/surname / The first thing I've tried was to store xml metadata files into a odt zip archive: I have created a new folder in the archive and then I've included the xml files that contain metadata in this folder. Finally I've added entries in the manifest.xml file for the newly created folder and for each one of the xml files: manifest:file-entry manifest:media-type= manifest:full- path=customXml// manifest:file-entry manifest:media-type=text/xml manifest:fullpath=customXml/item1.xml/ I was able to open the odt file in Writer but when I added a word in the document and stored it again, our xml files and the entries in the manifest file were gone. I guess the reason for this is that Openoffice only includes files in the archive that are referenced in the document. So I guess it will be necessary to adapt the routine in Openoffice that stores text documents. Could someone tell me where to find the code that loads/stores textdocuments from/to odt archives? I have read something about the XLoadable and XStoreable interfaces but I haven't found the implementation for Writer documents yet. Please tell me if you have any further ideas or remarks about what I have to take care about. Best regards -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] taking the biscuit
On Thursday 19 October 2006 3:48 am, Jon Rubin wrote: Hi Bruce, Apologies to the list members, I realise that in life three things are inevitable: death, taxes and lost data but sometimes the latter can happen at a very bad time, and inevitably when you've just done a lot of work. As for Sun (and let me make it clear I do not include and list members as causes for my pessimism) I can remember when OO 1.0 arrived and bibliography enhancements were being promised for 2.0 ... I remember too. It was a Windows XP (for all users) install and the biblio file is in this folder: C:\Program Files\OpenOffice.org 2.0\presets\database Two questions of my own: has anybody written a guide on how to import the old 1.x database into the 2. database because although I have done it, it did not seem at all straightforward and of course I can't now remember how I did it. As far as I know there is no difference between the OOo version 1.x and version 2.x bibliographic databases. (i.e non of my change/enhancement requests were actioned) The data base file is called biblio.dbf and it is located on my linux system in the directory [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/.openoffice.org2/user/database/biblio So importing the bibliography is just a matter of copying the old /biblio/biblio.dbf to the location of the new database. In your case do you have an old C:\Program Files\OpenOffice.org 1.0.x\presets\database directory left still ? And also how to have the bibliography database somewhere other than the default folder, I have tried but all that happened would be that no data would show at all when I wanted to insert a bibliography field. Yes it is a a real pain that when there is a problem with the bibliographic database, the application does nothing - there are no error messages of the type Cannot find the bibliographic database at C:\Program Files\OpenOffice.org 1.0.4\presets\database\ or The database at C:\Program Files\OpenOffice.org 1.0.4\presets\database\ is invalid However, to change the location of the database - First, understand that the bibliographic application looks for a database called 'Bibliography' and a table called 'biblio' in that database. In the case of the standard Xbase (.dbf) bibliographic database the database is a directory called /biblio and the table is a .dbf file in that directory called biblio.dbf You can change the location of the database By using the File-New-Database wizard. Create a new database called, say 'Bibliography-new' Then using the menu option- Tools-Options-OpenOffice.org Base-Database You should now have at least two databases listed, the original Bibliography and Bibliography-new. In that Panel edit the original Bibliography to change its name to Bibliography-old and change Bibliography-new to Bibliography. The Bibliographic application should use the new database, but if is not happy it will keep quite. I will put this info on the popular http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Bibliographic_Hints_and_Tips wiki page. I hope this helps, if you have any trouble then contact me. regards David regards, Jon. Bruce D'Arcus wrote: Hi Jon, Quick question: can you just confirm where your database was stored? I need to pass on the info to the Writer people. On this ... On 10/18/06, Jon Rubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, so I understand that Sun has very little interest in actually getting the bibliography project the support it needs ... I actually don't think this is quite right. We have recently had quite positive interactions with the Sun team on this and are optimistic we'll make progress. They're just stretched quite thin with all the work they need to do. Bruce - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ All new Yahoo! Mail The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use. - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev-biblio] OOo 2.0.4 has a built in BibTeX export filter.
The just released OOo 2.0.4 has a built in BibTeX export filter. File-Export-File Format='Bibtex (.bib)'. I have written some instructions on how to set up a RIS and BibTeX import filter on the wiki hints and tips page. You can easily add COPAC, endnote, ISI web of science, Pubmed import as these are also supported by the bibutils data converter. http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Bibliographic_Hints_and_Tips regards David -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev-biblio] How to use Zoterero with OOo
Dear Bibliographic list members, 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. I believe the Zotero team will be building an interface to MS Word and to OOo Writer at some stage. For those who would like to use Zotero with OOo now I have described a method for doing so - 8. How to load Zotero reference data into Openoffice 9. How to use Zotero to format your OOo Bibliography On the Hints and Tips Page - http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Bibliographic_Hints_and_Tips regards David -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev-biblio] [users-biblio] Amended Project Plans
On Wednesday 04 October 2006 8:53 am, you wrote: On 03/10/06, David Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whilst we need to wait for some developments with ODF, the Extension Toolkit and some Writer enhancements (formatted text in fields). There is still plenty of design work that can be done. We could probably start GUI design work for the new Bibliographic panels. Any volunteers ? Hm. Depends. Does it require prior familiarity with OOo internals and/or development process? :p Not really starting from the list of fields and settings we have to deal with - make nice GUI designs. However, the add/edit reference data is a complex issue though, we want a simple interface so the low skill / knowledge users can easily add a reference, but the 'power' options must be there for the professional. Also some insight is need to how different people will want to work. I would guess a tabbed interface and perhaps some 'More option' buttons for the power users to access the more complex and specialised options. Lots on fun here - every will have there own view. David -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org --- -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] Hierarchical Keyword Tree
Leonard Mada. Your have raised some very interesting questions. I think the idea of setting a scheme for sharing subject specific key word lists is well worth considering - and rather simple to implement. David On Wednesday 27 September 2006 7:51 am, Leonard Mada wrote: Hi, I made some progress regarding the keywords. Unfortunately, I believe that a plain keyword list won't solve much of the current problems; see http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Bib-Keywords paragraph 2.2 Limitations of Current Keyword Strategies for some reasons why basic keywords are far from adequate. I believe that a solution to this problem could lie in a hierarchical keyword tree. Users would be allowed to create dynamically such a keyword tree (using existing keywords) to enhance the capabilities of the search strategies. See the paragraph 3.1.2 Hierarchical Keyword Tree on the same page for a more extended discussion. Because all this is virtually new land, I would like to open a brainstorming session. I would appreciate any comments and suggestions. 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. Kind regards, Leonard Mada [aka discoleo] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] Re: [sw-discussion] Smart Tags in Openoffice Writer
On Saturday 02 September 2006 1:14 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: On 9/1/06, Jakob Lechner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We consider the primary use case of smart tags to be to link words (that are recognized by an external library) in a document with actions provided by this library. The user usually doesn't add patterns manually, but another application provides the patterns. For example if you have an inventory system, it could register inventory IDs with OpenOffice and so have any documents containing inventory IDs be possible gateways to the inventory system. Jakob, What you call 'Smart Tags' tags is very similar to the proposed 'Intelligent Document Tags' described in the 'StarOffice / OpenOffice.org “Q” Product Concept' document. http://tools.openoffice.org/releases/q-concept.html This document describes proposed enhancements that were to be built into OOo version 2. However, much to my disappointment 'Intelligent Document Tags' were not included in the OOo version 2 product. It was never clear to me why this was left out but I believe it was to lack of priority against the available development resources. I was hoping we could have have used 'Intelligent Document Tags' to build our enhanced bibliographic facility. Now we have to take other routes. David -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] more on word support
I read through the exchange and I think you put your position very well and the response was rather defensively or evasive. David On Saturday 15 July 2006 10:52 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: 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] -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] more on word support
On Sunday 16 July 2006 9:47 pm, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: 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). I have been think about this question, what do we need a local SQL database for? And how does it need to be integrated with the Bibliographic application? SQL databases are good for very large quantities of data, and would essential if the the volume of data was greater that could could be held in list in memory.(which is now a very big list) This would not be the case for the citations to a single document. SQL databases are also good for sharing data and update facilities amongst many users. An SQL database is not necessary to store the local citations in documents even temporarily as they are worked on. However Bib users may want to store collections of citations, in some manner, and SQL databases are probably a mechanism we may want to support. If only to provide a browse and 'insert into document' function, as would do for internet / remote database search and insert. What the no-local-database approach, where the editing forms are only editing XML data embedded in the file package implies though is OOoBib would NOT be providing a mechanism or maintaining your collection of citations. That is, looking through the collection and spotting a error and fixing it. Perhaps suggest we advise people to use one of the many third party tools for that purpose. We can certainly do this in the early stages as we develop the application. One of the difficulties with a building a close connection between the xml local storage and a SQL database, is that the xml data will support formatted text, included embedded document objects (mathematical formula etc). SQL database are ascii based. Of course a one way to deal with this is to have a ascii version of each potentially formatted field and the formatted version. (you need the plain ascii field for searching) If we want to store and maintain bibliographic collections it would be easier if the collections were stored in a xml database such as eXist, and the field conversion problems disappear. I am thinking that the xml database for local storage of citation collections would be the a good choice as the some the local editing tools would work in the same way on the in-document citations and the xml database citations. This is least work option for storage of collections of citations. With a SQL database we would need to build two sets of editing tools - xml and SQL. I do not have any firm ideas about this, these are just my musings. David -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev-biblio] more on Keywords
One of the nice things about wiki's is that you set up a page and the pixies come in night and make it better. (Not at all like the Deteriorating Angel that comes in the night to make you a tiny bit older). I set up a wiki page about keywords with discoleo's suggestions about keywords - discoleo wrote --- One way to better sort articles is based on Keywords. However, there is another way I will shortly describe here. There are a number of categories a research paper can belong to: * Basic Research * Theoretical Research (especially in Math/Physics) *Trials: **randomized controlled trial **Meta-analysis **other trial *Review *Guideline *Correspondence *Editorial *Epidemiologic Study *Case Report *Images in clinical medicine (some Journals have such a feature/ could be a subgroup of Case Report) *Questions/ Question-Answers discoleo has been thinking more about about keywords and has added some suggestions about - *How to standardize *How to implement this *Requirements *Top Categories see http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Bib-Keywords regards David -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev-biblio] Footnotes and with intext citations.
I have been thinking about the options needed for the Insert/ Edit Citation panel. Yet another history complexity. This one is from my thesis. Whilst the thesis citation style is Chicago footnotes, the thesis is principally an examination of two texts and I followed the convention of listing the Abbreviations at the start of the document , ie. - Táin LL Táin Bó Cúalnge from the Book of Leinster. Translated and edited by Cecile O’Rahilly. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1970. Táin I Táin Bó Cúalnge Recension 1. Translated and edited by Cecile O’Rahilly. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1976. - And then using intext citations to these two main texts ie. --- After Fergus had left, Etarcumul taunted Cú Chulainn: I think you are fine indeed. You are a comely, splendid, handsome youth with brilliant, numerous, various feats of arms. But as for reckoning you among goodly heroes or warriors or champions or sledge-hammers of smiting, we do not do so nor count you at all. (Táin LL 183) -- 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 So the the upshot of this - Maybe we do need a intext/ footnote selector on the Insert/ Edit Citation panel, even though the document style will select which is the default position. The option may be grayed out if the document style really prohibits such mixing. As far as I can tell neither Endnote or Ibidem has this ability. BTW the 'Táin LL' and the 'Táin 1' strings could be selected in the Ibidem panel using Short title (or a custom short title) and the Exclude Author name option. Maybe we are a position were we could come up with a (almost) definitive list of the option the Insert / Edit Citation panel needs to support ? -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] localization?
My guess is that for the final production version that would eventually ship with OpenOffice, would need need either separate language versions of the CSL files or internationalization via the use strings in a separate files. In styles like Chicago there are a few language specific strings like Publisher not known. Although I do not know enough styles to know if this is the case with all of them If as you say using lookup language strings makes the csl files to0 complex, then producing separate language versions may not be as difficult as it may first seem. This can be done through macro processors or other conversion tools. This could made easier if the csl files could include a indicator for the strings that may need language conversion. Using this approach the user can modify their own standalone csl files, and can even share them on web site as we have discussed before. David On Thursday 06 July 2006 2:29 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: I think it's time to move this to the relevant lists: Awhile back I made the decision (after soliciting comments) that all CSL files would be language-specific. I did this because in the real world of academic publishing (which is really the target) styles are almost by definition language-specific. One does not typically use more generic styles like APA or Chicago, but publisher or journal specific variations, each of which are aimed at a particular target audience and language. Matthias Steffens has suggested I allow for optional internationalization extensions, so that if a non-english user, say, was using the apa style (defined in english), it would lookup the strings in a separate file. My worry about this approach is it adds needless complexity (flles are more complex, no longer self-contained, etc.), for unclear benefit. Yes, in some cases it will result in redundancy and duplication, but does that really matter in this case? I can get into specifics if needed, but thought I'd start with the basic question of requirements/use case. 1) Do we care about localization within styles? Should a user be able to define (and choose) a style independent of language? 2) Is it important that style files be self-contained? Anything else? Bruce - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev-biblio] The Vote for Bibliographic Enhancements
Bibliographic List Members, I would like to thank the list members who voted. The vote count now 94 and Bibliographic Enhancement is now 8th highest ranking Feature or Enhancment in the issues list. This should help to raise our profile in the scheduling of development activities. To see the current ranking of projects with over 70 votes you can use this very long URL - http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/buglist.cgi?issue_status=NEWissue_status=STARTEDissue_status=REOPENEDemail1=emailtype1=exactemailassigned_to1=1email2=emailtype2=exactemailreporter2=1issueidtype=includeissue_id=changedin=votes=70chfieldfrom=chfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=short_desc=short_desc_type=substringlong_desc=long_desc_type=substringissue_file_loc=issue_file_loc_type=substringstatus_whiteboard=status_whiteboard_type=substringkeywords=keywords_type=anytokensfield0-0-0=nooptype0-0-0=noopvalue0-0-0=cmdtype=doitnewqueryname=order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+timeSubmit+query=Submit+query regards David On Sunday 25 June 2006 9:21 am, David Wilson wrote: Bibliographic Project List members, One of the ways the OpenOffice developers access the importance of fixed and enhancements to OpenOffice is through project members voting on the issue voting system. I raised this issue some time ago but it is worth raising again. The bibliographic enhancement issue 'Proposals for Bibliographic facility enhancements.' has only 21 votes! regards David -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev-biblio] Fwd: Re: [dev] Will OOo version 3 preserve backwards file compatibility with OOo 2 ?
FYI -- Forwarded Message -- Subject: Re: [dev] Will OOo version 3 preserve backwards file compatibility with OOo 2 ? Date: Wednesday 28 June 2006 7:05 pm From: Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@openoffice.org David, David Wilson wrote: In terms of the file format they would be. Older versions of Writer would just ignore the extensions. The question is how much backwards compatibility do we need to build in. In the current version of Writer every time you insert a Bibliography Entry / Citation the full set of bibliographic data (author, publisher etc.) is stored with each Entry, and no link is made with the source of the entry. The only way to correct a Bibliography Entry is to find each one and edit its data, or correct the database and reinsert the relevant Bibliography Entries. backward compatibility is often regarded a holy cow. The ones saying that you never ever are allowed to break it (often representing commercial entities), while others saying that such a beast never existed (often voiced by open source protagonists), that you are always allowed to do whatever you want, at least on the ABI level. So, my personal approach mostly is, if I do not expect to annoy to many people, I just break it and see what happens, otherwise I keep it. David Sorry for not being to helpful here, I am sure Michael Brauer has more to say Kay - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev-biblio] Enhance the Text-Field or Bookmark functions to include formatted text
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. This enhancement would would be of wider interest than just to the Bibliographic project. Oliver Specht has suggested that there are two ways in which this might be achieved - to enhance the text-field, or by enhancing bookmarks. (I have quoted his comments below.) I would like to get some discussion on this topic and to determine which is the better approach. regards David = In discussing how to achieve formatted text in fields, Oliver Specht [EMAIL PROTECTED], wrote the following - The Writer has two possible content types that could be extended to support the citation element (and other elements generically) The first is the text field (com.sun.star.text.TextField). A generic field service could be added to the API of the Writer that would have a property that contains a DOM tree. This DOM tree contains the citation-element. The bibliography creates the DOM tree of those fields and inserts them into the text together with a string that contains the presentation text. Such fields can only be formatted as a whole. It is not possible to have e.g. parts of this presentation printed in bold. This text can not be spanned over paragraphs. The text cannot be changed manually. Another possible solution is to add a new object that is similar to bookmarks (com.sun.star.text.Bookmark). This extended bookmark would also carry a DOM tree property. This 'bookmark' can span over formatted text longer than a paragraph. The user can modify the text inside of this bookmark easily. In both cases an interface to access the new elements needs to be implemented (sorted by document position). The DOM interfaces are in com.sun.star.xml.dom. (e.g. XDocument.idl, XNode.idl, XElement.idl) There's also a service com.sun.star.xml.dom.DocumentBuilder available that supports the creation of DOM trees. The bibliography component works on the DOM tree and can manipulate it independently. In case of using a field the component has to set the resulting string representation of the reference at this field. Using the field is a bit easier and using the bookmark is more powerful. This issues is also detailed at the wiki address below. The wiki page has web links to some of the relevant api and DOM descriptions. http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer_enhancements_for_OOBib#Enhanced_Field_or_Bookmark_Function_to_Include_Formatted_Text Regards David -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev-biblio] Will OOo version 3 preserve backwards file compatibility with OOo 2 ?
Can anyone advise us as whether OOo version 3 will preserve backwards file compatibility with OOo 2 ? Has this matter been decided yet, or does the major release number mean that compatibility does not need to be conserved ? In designing the bibliographic enhancements the Bibliographic Project is discussing the issue of backwards file compatibility. The Bibliographic Project is hoping to see major enhancements to Citation and Bibliography support in OOo version 3 (if not before). The OpenDocument file format version 1.2, due sometime in 2007, will included improved citation and metadata support and we are working out how Writer can best utilise these enhancements, as well as implementing our improved citation and bibliography formatting process, called CiteProc. If we need to maintain backwards file compatibility between OOo versions 2 and 3 then we would need to maintain the old and the new citation and bibliography definition in the save file. If we are not maintaining backwards file compatibility then the design is much simpler in Writer as the import / export filters will handle the conversions. For more details see - http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer_enhancements_for_OOBib#Backwards_and_Forwards_Compatibility regards David -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev-biblio] Important: Please Vote for Bibliographic Enhancements.
Bibliographic Project List members, One of the ways the OpenOffice developers access the importance of fixed and enhancements to OpenOffice is through project members voting on the issue voting system. I raised this issue some time ago but it is worth raising again. I have just checked the current list of votes on issues, this query list all issues with more than 20 votes. You see this list using this very long URL- http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/buglist.cgi?resort=1issue_status=NEW;issue_status=STARTED;issue_status=REOPENED;email1=;emailtype1=exact;emailassigned_to1=1;email2=;emailtype2=exact;emailreporter2=1;issueidtype=include;issue_id=;changedin=;votes=20;chfieldfrom=;chfieldto=Now;chfieldvalue=;short_desc=;short_desc_type=substring;long_desc=;long_desc_type=substring;issue_file_loc=;issue_file_loc_type=substring;status_whiteboard=;status_whiteboard_type=substring;keywords=;keywords_type=anytokens;field0-0-0=noop;type0-0-0=noop;value0-0-0=;newqueryname=;Submit%20query=Submit%20queryorder=issues.votes%20desc%2C%20issues.priority%2C%20issues.issue_type The issue with the highest vote is 'allow import of SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics)' with 317 votes. The bibliographic enhancement issue 'Proposals for Bibliographic facility enhancements.' has only 21 votes! Each user has five votes to allocate. I urge every one on these lists to allocate one or all of their votes to the issue 4260 'Proposals for Bibliographic facility enhancements.' To vote is easy, you just go to the OpenOffice site http://www.openoffice.org Click on the 'My Pages' tab and login in with your username and password. and then got to the voting page for that issue - http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/showvotes.cgi?voteon=4260 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. If everyone on the mailing lists does this we should boost our vote the top of the issue list. regards David -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] citation GUI?
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 9:21 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: 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. If detail-units really means location-units I think it may be worth preserving. I think we need a location data level even when we have not yet thought up all the location types. Wouldn't it make it easier to process a given style - Author, (publishing details), location If location-units are an either a separate list (possibly user extensible) or at least gathered in one place in the code. It terms of program maintenance if would be nicer to add LP record=A/B side: Track# to the types of locations than to just add in at 'the right place' in the CSL code. David --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev-biblio] Fwd: Site Infrastructure Upgrade: Tuesday 20 June
-- Forwarded Message -- Subject: [project leads] Site Infrastructure Upgrade: Tuesday 20 June Date: Saturday 17 June 2006 12:54 am From: Louis Suarez-Potts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@openoffice.org, dev@native-lang.openoffice.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Apologies: I meant, of course, 20 June, not 20 March. :-) All, Commencing Tuesday 20 June at 17:00 UTC, the OpenOffice.org site infrastructure will be upgraded. The main site, including mail lists, CVS, Issue Tracker (IssueZilla), and all other elements will be functionally offline for the duration, anticipated to be forty-eight (48) hours. Neither the OpenOffice.org wiki [0], nor anoncvs will be affected. As well, during the outage, a placeholder webpage listing download sites will be posted to www.openoffice.org. CollabNet has worked with the community on this upgrade for several months and together we have sought to ensure that the migration to the new (and improved) infrastructure will go smoothly. We regret the inconvenience this outage will produce. Project leads: Please inform your communities of the migration- related outage and upcoming infrastructure; thanks. For detailed (and useful) information on the upgrade process, see the wiki related to it [1]. Some points... * The new infrastructure, CollabNet Enterprise Edition 3.5.1, should be faster and more robust. For more information on the CEE 3.5.1, see the release notes [2] * Staticization has been improved and html pages will be updated more reliably and quickly * The new site allows for the use of the modern versioning system Subversion, and projects can explore its functionality * As to mail lists, forums, and other established functionality, such as Issue Tracker (IssueZilla), all that remains as present * SSH users should notice that new site will have a new IP address * Note: For a period of about twelve hours after the migration process, we will have to run several indexers, and these may affect the behaviour of list and forum archives, among other things; performance may also be affected [0] http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Page [1] http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Infrastructure_Upgrade [2] http://www.collab.net/rn/3_5_1.html Louis Suarez-Potts Community Manager CollabNet - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev-biblio] Keywords
discoleo has submitted an interesting enhancement request. I created a wiki page http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Bib-Keywords to discuss such issues. === discoleo wrote --- One way to better sort articles is based on Keywords. However, there is another way I will shortly describe here. There are a number of categories a research paper can belong to: * Basic Research * Theoretical Research (especially in Math/Physics) *Trials: **randomized controlled trial **Meta-analysis **other trial *Review *Guideline *Correspondence *Editorial *Epidemiologic Study *Case Report *Images in clinical medicine (some Journals have such a feature/ could be a subgroup of Case Report) *Questions/ Question-Answers If there are other relevant categories, feel free to implement them as well. This is especially useful when searching for all trials on a given matter (e.g. for writing a meta-analysis or writing a review or a guideline), or for a specific case report. I do have some 2500 of articles saved on my computer and searching for the correct file is a nightmare. It may seem that 2500 articles is a huge number, however in infections diseases this is only a minimum to start with. It is useful to have a field storing this information. Although custom fields exist, this is a feature that should be standard. It allows searching (and grouping) articles on a more powerful basis. Submitted as issue number 66353 by discoleo at Openoffice.org. == Implementation comment by dnw == How should this be implemented ? Most bib and document systems I have seem to think that adding a field for keywords is enough and let the user the invent their own categories. I have been involved in IT development and document management systems and have had enough lectures from librarians (ie professional indexers) to know that this just leads to a big unmanageable mess, which librarians are often called in to try to fix. Once you have a categorical mess it is generally hopeless. Also a good keyword system has a good set of aliases defined. One insurance company was providing different compensation for fractured limbs than for broken limbs, because their compensation history search system did not have these aliases defined. The cases and the compensation history diverged as each of the staff used their preferred term. So --- Should we build pre-defined document category sets that a user could select one for each document collection. i.e. Medical Research, Physical Sciences, Social Sciences etc ? -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] intro. and contributions
Ryan, Thanks for your interest and offer of assistance. Unfortunately we have no finished software to test yet, and what we have is not yet sufficiently developed to document. If you would like to exercise your skills in writing you could look over the project web pages for areas that could be improved. Most of the web and wiki pages have been written by me, and I would consider my writing 'average'. In fact all through primary school my report's read - David's writing and spelling must improve if he is to do well next year. There seems to be lots of bounty sites. Here is Gnomes - http://www.gnome.org/bounties/ I have not looked closely to try to work out where our tasks would fit into the $100-4000 price range, but I would guess the middle to the higher end. The problem is not so much are complexity of the coding itself, but the requirement for learning about OpenOffice programming structures. We could offer a lower bounty first to the small pool people who understand OOo. We would have pay more if the person had to learn all that stuff just to do the task. David On Monday 29 May 2006 1:58 am, Ryan Cragun wrote: I haven't introduced myself. I'm a graduate student in sociology who uses bibliographic software all the time and am very interested in an OpenOffice version. Unfortunately, I have no programming ability, but I'm happy to test the software and work on documentation - the two areas where I can contribute. I'd also be willing to put up some funds for the so-called bounties, but I don't have much. How much are we talking? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] Base forms (was Minimal Target)
On Wednesday 05 April 2006 8:49 pm, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: On Apr 5, 2006, at 12:26 AM, David Wilson wrote: You can use Xforms in OOo but it is harder to use than Base forms which are of the point and click type, to link database fields to form fields. So what kind of form functionality does Base provide? Can we do stuff like auto-complete fields? It has standard stuff like pick lists, but they may function like auto-complete - type a 's' and it move to the start of the s's, type a w and Swahili is the only word on the list that matches s is selected. I will have to test it. Bruce David -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] Re: Re: embedded references/functional requirements wiki page
On Thursday 06 April 2006 4:24 am, Matthias Steffens wrote: On Wed, 5-Apr-2006 10:27 -0400, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: Yes, that's a very nice feature. 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. (If you wonder why I make late entries into some of the discussions - it's because I am not up a 2:30 am) Yes I agree, we can not assume that library catalogues are correct - even the sainted US LOC. I was told recently the a common library cataloguing practice, and one used my university, is that when a new book comes in to be catalogue, the cataloguer, does a world-wide library search and copies the first cataloguing entry found. Now if they all do this all the libraries have copies of the very first cataloguing entry produced for that book by X from library Y, and X may not be all the skilled at writing them because he or she mostly spends their time copying other libraries' efforts. This also partly explains why book on the same topics are not always together on the shelves. Also the libraries I have used often have problems collecting the books of one author under the same author listing. So you have books by Smith Fred, S Smith Fred, S (1934- ) Smith Fred, S (1934-1987) (Which will look poor in your Dissertation, and be even worse if you assumed they were different people) So the point is that collecting internet cataloguing data will not be a magic corrector of data. Useful, but it will still need checking by the user. David -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] Minimal Target
On Wednesday 05 April 2006 1:02 pm, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: 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. I was actually thinking of the bibliographic browser forms already in the eXist sample demos. In OOo the Base forms are easy to build, but you need to do OOo Basic programming to set up more advanced features like tabbed panels and probably to do complex multi-table updates. You can use Xforms in OOo but it is harder to use than Base forms which are of the point and click type, to link database fields to form fields. In OOo Xforms you have to construct your own Xpath statements for the form fields. Which for me is like hard programming. These are probably only suitable for early and quick prototyping . Bruce - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] embedded references/functional requirements wiki page
On Wednesday 05 April 2006 6:40 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: On Apr 4, 2006, at 3:54 PM, Matt Price wrote: comment: seems to me that it might be a good idea to start some of the actual deletion/consolidation suggested by Bruce or others. WHile fairly exhaustive, the document is currently pretty hard to follow and very long. Actually, I'd like to start by suggesting we scrap the current requirements document and start over with the basics. You are probably right. I will copy it and take it off. This is in part because the existing document is so big that it's very difficult to disentangle. Perhaps once we have a solid core, we can then go back and look through the current version and add stuff back in where appropriate. -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] Re: [users-biblio] Work documents on the wiki.
On Friday 31 March 2006 9:41 am, Matt Price wrote: Snip 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? Accepting Matt's good idea I have created a Bibliographic Database wiki page dealing with database design issues and the next development steps. http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Bibliographic_Database Also I have set up an new 'Bibliographic Index' page as a front page to our stuff on the wiki http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Bibliographic_Project Next I will link the Database tasks to the development task list. David --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] Re: [users-biblio] Work documents on the wiki.
On Friday 31 March 2006 9:41 am, Matt Price wrote: Hi David, Alternatively, would it make most sense to design the bibliographic database next -- Yes that is a task that could be started now. I notice I have not included the database design / build task on the Developers page. http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Bibliographic_Project's_Developer_Page I will add it in. since there are so few C coders here, but many people with some database experience? Hopefully the DB expert Bruce mentioned will help us through the design process. 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. I am open to suggestions on how to do this. I have had list of tasks up on the web site for some years - with not many takers. But we also need to develop and document the tasks much better than we have so that people can assess what they would be getting themselves into. CPH is doing some good work documenting the biblio coding. Matt - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] Bibliographic Table processing
On Monday 27 March 2006 12:15 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: Snip 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. The more useful definition is the higher level - /FieldMaster/Bibliography which specifies the attributes of the Bibliography (reference table). http://api.openoffice.org/docs/common/ref/com/sun/star/text/FieldMaster/Bibliography.html Now this Service DOES currently hold the settings for the display of citations such as the setting for numbered citations and the use of and type of brackets used around the citation. It also contains attributes relating to the generation of the bibliography SortKeys, SortAlgorithm, IsSortedByPosition. (I have a detailed reference to the OOo bibliographic software modules at http://bibliographic.openoffice.org/implementation.html) First the Bibliography service needs to separate attributes of citations, and attributes of the Bibliography. Then, one point of view might be, that all it really only needs to do is to collect the formated bibliography text from Citeproc formating engine and insert it into the document. It would also maintain some other user selectable attributes such as selecting 'Allow manual editing' or 'preserve from editing' . Do we need to do more than that ? Is there any advantage in building a structure within the document that represents the structure of the bibliography. The only practical use I can see for this would be if the Bibliography Table needed to contained links to the underlying reference data, so that if you right click on a entry in the table you could select an option to edit the reference data that was used to build it. Or right click on the author name in the table and bring up author details. But is this worth doing ? I am not sure it is. Users would be able to access the same data via the citations in the document. It is easier to have just dumb formated text. I have presented a view of the possible interaction at http://bibliographic.openoffice.org/components.html, in the diagram shown at the bottom of the page, I suggested that the writer bibliography service would pass to Citeproc the style name and the list of reference Ids that are to be used in generating the reference table, along with any other user setting that may be available such as sorting options. Of course we need input from the Writer team about how they see things. David -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] Bibliographic Table processing
On Monday 27 March 2006 12:15 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: snip . 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. It is not the case that a document has to have bibliography, the Bibliography xml structure is only inserted in a document when you do the Insert-'Indexes and Tables'-'Indexes and Tables'-tab=Index/Table:type=Bibliography Inserting citations does not create it. (I have just tested this) The quote you give looks like something so imprecise I might have written it. 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. David -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] Some citation questions
First I would like to express my gratitude to CPHennessy for putting in such an effort under difficult circumstance, not helped much by my documentation. On Sunday 26 March 2006 2:33 am, CPHennessy wrote: In the new approach, those five citations each point to the same -- single -- metadata record, which is moved out of the content file into its own dedicated file. Ah, now this was not clear to me. But the example docs you gave me did not do this. I presume that this was to make life a bit easier for me. It has but it left a gap in my understanding which you have now partially filled. I had tried explain the proposed document structure in http://bibliographic.openoffice.org/enhanced-save-package-description.html and http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Bibliographic_Document_XML_Format which are linked from the Developer's wiki page ( http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Bibliographic_Project's_Developer_Page ). These two pages, which I now see, the poor reader would have had to examine both carefully and some-how integrate in order to get the full picture, try to show how the current bibliographic and the proposed writer document structure which is stored in the content.xml file. It also tries to show one of the major changes which is is to move the reference details out of content.xml to a new document in the save package, which I have called biblio-data.xml. A suggested format for that file is shown on the 'enhanced-save-package-description.html' wiki page. I hope this and the changes I will make to the wiki pages today will make it much clearer. regards David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] Some citation questions
On Sunday 26 March 2006 2:21 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: On Mar 25, 2006, at 9:09 AM, CPHennessy wrote: 2 - (is a consequence of the above or make the decision for us) can one citation be displayed in several ways in the same document at the same time ? There is the case where some styles have a first (more detailed) and subsequent (less detailed) format for citations. David -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev-biblio] Developer Article Competition
Hi, You may have noticed OpenOffice.org is a running competition for developer articles. These are articles written to help developers working on OOo. The award sum is $750 USD. The official announcement of the competition is below. --- All, OpenOffice.org, with the support of Team OpenOffice.org e.V. and extra sponsorship from Sun Microsystems, announces the Developer Contest. The goal of the developer contest is to generate more developer documentation. We are also interested in promoting OpenOffice.org to developers at the same time. The current deadline is 31 March 2006. Each month, a new deadline will be set for the end of that month. As part of the contest, developers are asked to write articles about developer topics, such as porting, add-on and filter development (e.g. new wizards, Calc functions, chart types, etc.), bug fixing, etc. Every month a committee will pick the best article from the pool of submitted articles. Articles that did not initially win will stay in the pool, so that they can still win later. Detailed rules can be found here: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ OpenOffice.org_Developer_Article_Contest (http://tinyurl.com/kptj3) The developer contest team wishes all participating developers and writers good luck! We look forward to receiving the first articles. Best regards, The OpenOffice.org Developer Contest Team - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev-biblio] tcluno and the YAZ internet search client.
The tcluno team has announced the release 0.2 of tcluno. Tcluno is a set of Tcl packages, which provide acccess to OpenOffice.org using the urp socket interface. One part of the packages (unospection) allows interactive introspection and driving of a running OpenOffice.org process (server). This may be of interest to a Bibliographic hacker because the YAZ toolkit has a demonstration client program called IRTCL that can perform the internet reference searches using the Z39.50. IRTCL is writen in tcl/tk. It does everything but save or export the results ! However, using OOo tcluno it should be moderately easy to add the code to save the internet search results back to the OOo bibliographic database. david -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] an example of a odt file with the new citation xml
On Monday 02 January 2006 3:09 am, CPHennessy wrote: Hi, Does anyone have an example file (i.e. the contents.xml and others with the right format), for the new citation. I want a complete file as it is not clear to me where the citation xml actually sits in the ODT file and hence it is hard for me to see where the OOo needs to be changed to parse the relevant information. I have made an attempt at producing a example .odt file with the proposed citation changes. it is package as a zip file - http://bibliographic.openoffice.org/files/documents/124/3147/bib-enhanced.zip I have also tried to show a side by side example of the old and new bibliographic data formats. at http://bibliographic.openoffice.org/enhanced-save-package-description.html Please understand I know very little about the OOo XML document format and I have made several guesses about what to do. So I would appreciated advice and suggestions and how to improve and correct these documents. I will place the content.xml on the wiki site so others can make corrections. For these examples, for clarity and simplicity I have replaced the old bibliographic data with the new enahancements. I reality we may need to keep both sets in the file for backwards compatibility. David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] an example of a odt file with the new citation xml
On Monday 02 January 2006 3:09 am, CPHennessy wrote: Hi, Does anyone have an example file (i.e. the contents.xml and others with the right format), for the new citation. I want a complete file as it is not clear to me where the citation xml actually sits in the ODT file and hence it is hard for me to see where the OOo needs to be changed to parse the relevant information. We have not tried to put together a sample ODT in the proposed format. I will have a go at it. David -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev-biblio] Bibliographic Project announces its development plans
The OOo Bibliographic Project (OOoBib) is pleased to announce the release of its development plans. The plans are available at http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/User_talk:Dnw . We have placed our plans on the wiki site as we hope developers will contribute by adding information to assist others and to add detail to the plans. Our current objective is to design and build OOoBib version 0.1, which will contain the most basic functions for an usable bibliographic facility with: 1.bibliographic formatting support for: * complex features required of commonly used citation styles like APA and Chicago * automatically switching between potentially radically different citation styles (ie. footnote to in-text) 2.a data model that can support a broader range of reference types 3.integration with remote databases We are, in fact ready to go with the first task in that plan which is to modify the Writer document-read and document-save modules to support the new OpenDocument enhanced citation format, and to implement the citation and bibliography changes to the OOo Writer save file (in Open Document format) accepted by the OpenDocument Technical Committee. OOoBib offers many interesting opportunities for developers to become involved with a range of cutting edge technologies, covering: Internet, metadata, databases, and XML XSLT and OpenOffice. Please consider if you would like to help us in the development of this exiting project. We especially need the assistance of a C++ programmer to implement the first essential changes to Writer. When these basic changes are in place we can proceed with application prototyping in OOo Basic, Java or Python. When we have designed, built and tested the prototypes and they have been accepted by the OOo community we intend to rebuild them in C++ so that they can become part of the core OpenOffice application. -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] wiki updates
On Wednesday 14 December 2005 11:20 am, CPHennessy wrote: On Sat December 10 2005 18:50, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: On 12/10/05, CPHennessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Bruce, Nice work. Can you also update it to add something relevant to my questions/suggestions : Yes, forgot to mention that we're working on the second one. I think I addressed your first point. If not, tell me what I'm missing. Hi Bruce, There seems to be a flowchart missing in section Backwards and Forwards Compatability - A suggested approach is illustrated in this flowchart. Thanks, The link seems to have got lost, I have replaced it. David -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] Almost ready to go ! Draft new development plans
Bruce I have busy with other things including Christmas shopping, to this has been a bit slow in coming. I have update the http://bibliographic.openoffice.org/developer1.html page and hope I have amended as to your suggestions. I will try to get it on the Wiki site tomorrow. David On Monday 05 December 2005 3:39 pm, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: OK, I spent a bit of time now going through. I think right now the text -- the actual narrative explanation of the plan -- needs to be more tightly focused, and reorganized a bit. For example, take this opening paragraph: The role of the Bibliographic Project (OOoBib) is to support the OpenOffice.org Writer (wordprocessing) application by enhancing the bibliographic facility. See our Vision statement for details. Our current objection to to design and build OOoBib version 0.1, which will contain the most basic functions for an usable bibligraphic facility. A lot of the text reads this way, where the content is fairly generic, and then there are links to other detailed documents. I'd change the organization to list further references (those links now inlined in the content) at the end, and include the most important content in the main body. For example, we need to say really clearly that we want to achieve the following objectives: 1) Enhance formatting to support: a. complex features required of commonly used citation styles like APA and Chicago b. automatically switching between potentially radically different citation styles 2) Enhance data model to support a broader range of reference types 3) Add support for connection to remote databases Much of the first stage stuff is thus related to 1 (though also includes the other two). I agree with CPH that we need to include examples of the new citation coding in this document, and we need to do so in order to demonstrate the sort of compelling features that it makes possible. One of those features (related to 1b above) is to be able to seamlessly switch back-and-forth between author-year styles and footnote-based ones. This features is a) practically useful, b) unsupported in commercial alternatives like Endnote, and c) demonstrates what this new citation coding will enable. It both shows the power of the new coding, and is also a good test of how well the final solution works. Anyway, here are two examples. The first is a standard author-year style, with additional page number details: cite:citation xmlns:cite=http://purl.org/NET/xbiblio/cite/1.0; xmlns:text=urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:text:1.0 cite:citation-source cite:biblioref cite:key=Veer1996a cite:detail cite:units=pages cite:begin=23 cite:end=24/ /cite:biblioref /cite:citation-source cite:citation-body text:span text:style-name=Citation(Veer, 1996: 23-24)/text:span /cite:citation-body /cite:citation The second is a footnoted example. cite:citation xmlns:cite=http://purl.org/NET/xbiblio/cite/1.0; xmlns:text=urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:text:1.0 cite:citation-source cite:biblioref cite:key=Veer1996a/ /cite:citation-source cite:citation-body text:note text:id=ftn0 text:note-class=footnote text:note-citation1/text:note-citation text:note-body text:p text:style-name=FootnotePeter van der Veer (1996) Riots and Rituals: The Construction of Violence and Public Space in Hindu Nationalism, In Paul Brass Ed., Riots and Pogroms (New York:NYU Press) 154–76./text:p /text:note-body /text:note /cite:citation-body /cite:citation The idea here is that one should be able to switch between the two without modifying the document source. So the trick is that OOo handles the cite:citation-body content is if it was any other content. These footnoted citations, then, would look the same as any other footnote, both in terms of display, and also numbering. There may be a minor change needed depending on where the RDF discussion goes (namely that cite:key may be too specific, and we may want a more generic way to link content to metadata items), but it ought to be otherwise pretty stable. I also wonder if the namespace ought to be changed to be use the oasis urn? In any case, minor details. Bruce - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] Draft new development plans on Wiki
CPHennessy, Thanks for the suggestion I have put the text from the developer page at http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/User_talk:Dnw for people to modify. I have not yet made the changes suggested by Bruce and others yet. I will get to them soon. I have had computer troubles, which I have almost fixed. Regards On Monday 05 December 2005 11:36 am, CPHennessy wrote: On Sun December 4 2005 21:40, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: On Dec 4, 2005, at 4:20 PM, David Wilson wrote: On Monday 05 December 2005 12:06 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: Two quick things David: 1) I think it'd be helpful to have these sorts of documents as a wiki, so it's easier and quicker to revise. Do we have that available to us? Yes, we have the 'forum' area. I have put my message there and could try to use it for the discussion. http://bibliographic.openoffice.org/servlets/ForumMessageList?forumID=5 Hmm ... a forum is not a wiki. The idea is to allow direct editing of the document. I've been using this recently in couple of related contexts, and it's convenient. Otherwise, every little edit has to go through you. Maybe you could use the OOo wiki at http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Page -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] take 1 on CSL mods
I think the answer might be to remove the sorting from the CLS process. I will explain - I have been looking at my style guide again. They suggest an example with several levels of Grouping and sorting: For example - == Primary Sources Published Sources cited works sorted by name, date Unpublished Sources cited works sorted by name, date Secondary Sources cited works sorted by name, date = The style guide says about sorting (by name or date) ‘use what is most useful”. In any of these groups the user should be able to select the sort order name, date / date, name etc. And as Martha suggested there could be an arbitrary number and levels of headings, and sorting options. (Published / Un-published could be sorted based on record content tests ie ' If Publisher Name exists then work is a member of 'Published'. If NOT 'Published' then work is a member of 'Unpublished'.) Also I have suggested before we need a mechanism to allow to manually over-ride the sorting order As Martha has said fully automatic systems drive you crazy. For setting up the bibliography table I suggest we have a GUI that allows the user to set Heading Groups and table sorting options and “pre-sorting rules”. For pre-sorting to operate each bibliographic record would have a name-sort field which the sort-pre-processing would convert the name to the sort-name. There would be a bib table Preview panel to check the operation of each user intervention. An example of special sorting rules for names: how to sort ‘Mujahid Usamah Bin Ladin’ ; Bin Ladin is the family name but ‘Bin’ should always ignored in sorting arabic names, and the name would be grouped in the ‘L’s.)” or the generally known all 'Mc' or 'Mc ' are replaced with 'Mac'. Also you may want to Anglicise the names by replace all the umlauts or accents with the standard unaccented character. There would be a standard set of pre-sort rules but the user could add extra rules. These could be rules to fix Chinese – English transliteration problems ie change all 'Mao Tse Tung' to 'Mao Zedung'. To fix the situation where the rules do not seem to work, force the sorting order - For record ID 34334453 sort-name ='smith, d. h. So how would this interact with the CiteProc formatting engine ? The Bibliographic Table GUI would send a list of citation ID's to CiteProc, and CiteProc would return the formatted citation strings to the selected style. The sort order does not matter at this point. Through the GUI process the pre-sort rules populate the sort-name fields and the Headings are defined. When the user has finished the bib table setup and pressed the OK button to generate the table. The GUI process could return to Citeproc the sorted list of citation Ids along with the Headings. ie Bib Heading level1='Primary Sources', CiteIds=1234, 13445, 234234, 234234, 234234 Bib Heading level2='Published Sources' CiteIds= 45234,23423,2344,3566,576567, Bib Heading level2='Unpublished Sources' CiteIds= 576567,56758,3245,123,234,4223,8645 Bib Heading level1='Secondary Sources' CiteIds= 463456923, 238492, 2348974, 088776 This should be easier to work with. Regarding Heading groups. I think that user defined groups can be just assigned to the cited works in a document. If a user then assigns both 'Primary Sources' and 'Secondary Source' to work then it will appear in both lists. There group names could be carried over from a user Bibliographic databases but need to customisable for each document, as what is a 'Primary Sources' for one document could be a 'Secondary Source' for an other. How does this sound ? David On Thursday 24 November 2005 5:14 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: OK, here's the outline of the current draft, where I'm trying to incorporate Johan's earlier comments with my interest in solving the grouping issue. Comments inline: content names and-as=and/ dates !-- for now, keep the existing approach -- months month/month /months /dates locators !-- make all of these more compact and consistent; still could remove all the wrappers here (locators, terms, etc.), but am not sure about that -- locator type=page renderas-single=p renderas-multiple=pp/ /locators terms genres genre type=letter renderas=letter/ /genres media medium type=CD renderas=CD/ /media /terms !-- move the prefix and suffix elements to attributes per previous discussion; it has limitations, but is more compact; easier to port to OpenDocument -- citation delimiter=; prefix=( suffix=) multiple-authors / layout creator/creator /layout /citation bibliography groups !-- the new grouping structure; logic is as follows: we have two options to group by: creator and named group
Re: [dev-biblio] configuring grouping
On Monday 21 November 2005 3:05 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: I am still considering the other points but I can make a comment on this. 3) Primary and secondary sources. This is a tricky one, as David has made the argument one would need to assign groups in this case. I am assuming the formatter can have some generic logic to handle this. E.g., primary sources do not have publishers, and are not articles? There is really no way to automaticly separate the primary and secondary sources. This is because the categories Primary and secondary are in relation to the topic. In my History thesis on Early Irish Sagas, the early saga texts were the Primary source to the topic. (Note: these were published texts.) Other peoples commentary on the work were secondary. But if the topic was 'The History of Commentary on the Early Irish Sagas' then much of what was secondary source material in the first paper becomes the primary material for the second paper. Thus topic dependent. For my thesis, if I had been able to read Old Irish and had consulted the original unpublished manuscripts then these would have been the primary sources, not the published translations I did rely on. I have now just realised that this means that not only do users need to be able to specify the groupings for the bibliography (primary and secondary, and any others) but that user needs to be able to specify which group the citation belongs to for each paper! Sorry Bruce this seems to make a bit more difficult. David -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] configuring grouping
On Monday 21 November 2005 9:03 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: On Nov 20, 2005, at 4:47 PM, David Wilson wrote: I have now just realised that this means that not only do users need to be able to specify the groupings for the bibliography (primary and secondary, and any others) but that user needs to be able to specify which group the citation belongs to for each paper! Not following here. Can you explain? I have not put this well. I mean not to assign a group at each citation (mention of the work in the document) but for the each work cited in the document. ie. For this document this work is Primary Source (or other group). Sorry Bruce this seems to make a bit more difficult. Crap! OK, but let's see if we can make this as simple as possible. I have learned through working on citeproc and csl that often one can find simple solutions to what at first seem like difficult problems. On first glance, you are telling me that we must force users to assign each citation to a group (if they need this sort of formatting at least), and therefore the internal coding must be able to store this (it cannot yet in the OD proposal). The group belongs to the Cited work not per citation of the work. So the grouping would be stored with the bibliographic detail file in the save files, not in the citation field inserted in the document. I know as a user that I'd rather not have to do that, so perhaps we can figure out some other way. Am not sure how, mind you! Easy, have a default group. For people who do not need sorting this can be a Default (no heading) group. For most of my History papers 80-90% of the cited works were Secondary (so that would the default for me) Then, either when adding cited works or latter when finishing the paper assign the few Primary sources. If we can't, then I guess my proposed solution would be similar; we'd just need to add a group attribute to the citation coding. Bruce - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] metadata update
On Sunday 13 November 2005 4:07 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: Just a quick update: Long story here, but the short take-home point is that I'll be leading an effort -- hosted by the new OpenDocument Fellowship -- to design a proposal to significantly enhance metadata support in OpenDocument. That proposal will formalize the ideas I laid out here: Bruce This is great news - indicative of the growing support for Bruce's innovative approach to metadata support in OpenDocument - which is central to the sucesss of our bibliographic project. For those who have not yet come across it yet a mp3 is available of the talk Bruce was recently invited to give to the Canadian library technology conference Access 2005. His talk was - Bridging Worlds: Library IT and Free Software Presents ongoing work in improving open standards and software for students and researchers by exploiting innovations in library-oriented technology and trends in the free software community. Focuses in particular on the OpenOffice bibliographic project and related work. You can down load the mp3 http://access2005.library.ualberta.ca/presentations/podcasts/darcus.mp3 and the slides http://www.users.muohio.edu/darcusb/talks/biblio/Access2005.html Also the OpenDocument Fellowship can be found at - http://opendocumentfellowship.org/Main/HomePage regards David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] Update
Edward, Welcome to our project, I am sure you will be be able to find some interesting way to use your programming skills to help us. Please keep in touch. David On Sunday 13 November 2005 8:32 am, Edward Summers wrote: On Nov 12, 2005, at 3:21 PM, David Wilson wrote: My impression is that they support, in principle, our approach and goals. We have to wait and see what resources can be scheduled for this work and when. Wow, this is great news. I'm a new subscriber to the dev list. I got interested by following Bruce's work for close to a year. Bruce actually asked me to send a quick introduction. I'm a software developer at Follett Corporation (a book distributor and library software company). I am currently working as a Java programmer but also have experience programming in Python, Ruby and Perl. A long time ago in a galaxy far far away I got an MLS and worked in academic libraries before deciding to pursue my life long interest in computers. At any rate, I'd like to contribute programming skills to this project. Hopefully I'll find the time to get involved as things progress. Ed Summers aim: inkdroid yahoo: inkdroid jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.inkdroid.org ; http://www.textualize.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] Bibshare
Matej, Thanks for the suggestion, I have not come across Bibshare before. I will add a reference to it to the biblio-sw web page. David On Monday 07 November 2005 2:14 am, Matej Cepl wrote: Hi, just to ask for adding another bibliographic project to the list on http://bibliographic.openoffice.org/biblio-sw.html. It is called Bibshare and originally it was the project how to make Word work with BibTeX files http://www.acm.org/crossroads/xrds6-4/bibword.html, but later (with support of Microsoft Research!) it developed into something much more resembling current Bruce's thoughts of the remote database driven references http://bibshare.dsic.upv.es/. Unfortunately, I haven't used it (not having Windows here) and copyright status of the thing is unknown (especially, suspicious if M$ Research was involved; but, originally they provided source code). Best, Matěj -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev-biblio] Document type lists and document options
Some of the problems we have been dealing with the question of mapping the standard document types to MODS and how to design a user interface to collect reference data. I have thinking about how the other Bibliographic applications use standard document types and I think we should try a different approach for our GUI. Or at least give the users an option to use a different approach. So I offer these ideas for discussion. OpenOffice currently supports only the following types - article, book, booklet, conference, custom1, custom2, custom3, custom4, custom5, email, inbook, incollection, inproceedings, journal, manual, mastersthesis, misc, phdthesis, proceedings, techreport, unpublished, www. This is similar to Bibtex. Most of the bibliographic packages I have seen start with the process of First select your document type, ... This implies that, before you start, you fully understand the document types, what distinguishes them and what the bibliographic formatting consequences are or selecting say inbook, as against incollection. What is the difference in format between a book and booklet reference ? If you have Honours dissertation is it the same as mastersthesis ? This process very confusing for a beginner and it still confuses me. Also, this list presumes that the full range of bibliographic field selection and ordering is defined by this list, but this is not the case. To provide one example - If a work is a reprint version of an old well known edition the publication details of the original edition may need to cited as well. I had several of this type in my thesis. If we supported this option with the same approach, we would have make new types reprinted Books, reprinted Articles, reprinted Journals, reprinted phdthesis etc. Also we do not want the situation where just because a user has entered the original publication details that this appears automatically in the bibliography. This should be a user option - Store original Publication details y/n Display original Publication details y/n I suggest a more flexible approach to the user interface, which could also support a wizard question walk though approach to properly define the bibliographic attributes. Rather than have fixed GUI panel design for each of the supported document types we have either only one (or several more general panels) with more options. I know that this can result in very large and confusing forms. But I envisage something flexible and dynamic. For example the Form could have Radio buttons - The work has - Author(s) [_] (or is unknown) [_] Editor(s)[_] Compiler(s) [_] Translator(s) [_] The Work is - Part of series [_] Part of a named edition [_] A reprint [_] Part of a collection with works by other authors [_] And the text entry fields (or a sub-form to collect names) would only appear when the associated button was selected. (I have seen this in web forms) I have not fully worked this out but the type of questions / options would include the following - Physical character Audio - talk, music, ... Video - film, documentary ... WWW pages Paper - booklet , book, pamphlet, journal, newspaper, magazine, map, ... Authorship The work has one or more authors? has Compiler(s) or Editor(s) ? Is the work a translation ? Publisher Publisher of this work, If it is a re-published (reprint) the publication details of the original edition as well. UnPublished The from in which the work has been referenced ie (Photocopied) Collections - Does the work have sections with different authors? (Collection title name, Editor(s) / Compiler(s), publisher, and / or publishing agency, page range of section referred to.) Series Is the work part of a series or collection ? Is the series well known enough for the series name to be given prominence ? (There may be a different field order if this is the case). (Series name, Editor(s) publisher, and / or publishing agency) Named Edition Is the work part of a Named Edition ? (Edition name) Conferences - If the work is an article, report or paper from a the published proceedings of a conference, the conference details are needed (conference title, place, date). Summary The point I am trying to get to is that the bibliography format should be generated from the information that the user has provided about the work, rather than from the user first have to make a selection from a document type list that is difficulty to fully understand and does not satisfy all the variation found. For exporting the data some program logic will have to find a best fit to a document type list. But we should not force the user to deal with this. There are many bibliographic details that can be collected when we look through the style guides. We could collect a list of possible options and work out how to best to present these to the users. We should think about a new Bibliographic GUI paradigm for OpenOffice.
Re: [dev-biblio] OO's bibliography project - request.
Arron, Sorry for the delay in getting to your question on the the list, I am the list moderator and I was a way for a few days. Your frustrations with OOo's bibliographic features are shared by the members of this list. I do not have Endnote so you will need advise us as to what Harvard_Curtin_2005 requires. Could you provide some details of the specification. What can be done with the current form of OOo is customise the bibliographic table albeit (within is own set of limitations) and save that document as a template. As you are probably aware the current bibliographic citation support is for intext citation only and it is up to the user to compose the citation string called the 'Short name' ie dwilson:2005 manually. It would be possible to write a macro to regenerate these citations strings to a set of rules for a single style (but running the macro would be another manual operation). There is still the dreadful data entry form, although this can be augmented by some 3rd party java based bibliographic programs such as B3 which can share a bibliographic database with OOo. How close would this get to your minimum requirements ? The 'OO style sheet implementation' which we are developing cannot yet be run within OOo and it will require changes to the WP before it can. We hope this work will start later this year, but unfortunately we cannot tell you when it might be available, it is unlikely to be this year, and we all hope that it will be next year. Thanks for your offer of assistance for testing, we hope we can offer some soon. Is there any chance of the Curtain IT department setting some OOo Bibliographic development task as a class project ? Some work has been done on this at Kent State Uni see http://www.cs.kent.edu/~capstone/ regards David Wilson On Friday 22 April 2005 4:38 pm, Arron Arntzen wrote: Hi Andreas Martens (at sun.com) dev@bibliographic.openoffice.org I am a lecturer and unit controller at Curtin University in Western Australia. Curtin has 32 campuses, mostly overseas. I have been using OO for all my own work since late beta's. I look like having input and some control over the content of the IS100 unit (i.e. 1st year intro to IS) next semester (July 2005). The only reason I cannot suggest to Curtin they throw out MSWord is the lack of output formatting in OO's bibliography. The OO style sheet implementation is exactly what I wish to teach the students, rather than the botched mess (my professional opinion, restated politely) provided in MSWord. To oversimplify, I am torn between giving the students an efficient way of creating their assignments and having poor referencing, or an inefficient way of producing their work and having good referencing. Given Curtin's strict policy on referencing, the former is not actually an option (yet...). This is also costing the students in my unit a significant increase in workload, and I would love to correct the problem. I am enclosing the three Endnote output styles from the University's website. The School of IS uses the Harvard_Curtin_2005.ens style sheet. Other Curtin Schools somewhere presumably use the other ones. If your team could provide a version of the Harvard_Curtin_2005.ens I could use in OO, there is a high probability I could migrate the students to at least OO Writer and Impress in late July. If not, Summer School in December, or next year etc.. I am quite happy to assist in testing the output, as I am currently doing most of my Curtin work in OO, then transferring to Word to run Endnote for the referencing. If you send me an alpha version, I have three or four guinea pig computers I can trash at will for testing. If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me. Cheers Arron Arntzen Unit Controller Analysis (Problem Analysis) 150 all campuses. Curtin University Mobile (Cell): +61 423 283 474 -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] get the name of the literature database by StarBasic
Jorg Our developer page has a few bits of sample code. Whilst the literature database can be user-defined it has to be given the DataSource name Bibliography for the bibliographic functions to work with it. I have quoted a small python routine below that reads entries from the bibliographic database. I know very little about OOo programming but the crucial bit seems to be setting the DataSourceName = Bibliography in rowset.DataSourceName = Bibliography I hope this helps. The real experts on this question are on database list so try there if you need more technical assistance. The bibliographic project does not have much programming skill yet. regards David == import uno from com.sun.star.sdb.CommandType import COMMAND def main(): connectionString = socket,host=localhost,port=2002 url = uno:+connectionString + ;urp;StarOffice.ComponentContext localCtx = uno.getComponentContext() localSmgr = localCtx.ServiceManager resolver = localSmgr.createInstanceWithContext( com.sun.star.bridge.UnoUrlResolver, localCtx) ctx = resolver.resolve( url ) smgr = ctx.ServiceManager rowset =smgr.createInstanceWithContext( com.sun.star.sdb.RowSet, ctx ) rowset.DataSourceName = Bibliography rowset.CommandType = COMMAND rowset.Command = SELECT IDENTIFIER, AUTHOR FROM biblio rowset.execute(); print Identifier\tAuthor id = rowset.findColumn( IDENTIFIER ) author = rowset.findColumn( AUTHOR ) while rowset.next(): print rowset.getString( id ) + \t + repr( rowset.getString( author ) ) rowset.dispose(); main() = On Wednesday 13 April 2005 2:56 am, Jrg Schmidt wrote: Hello, I can get the names of all databases in my OOo-Application by this code: Sub datenquellenAnzeigen oDatenbankKontext = createUnoService _ ( com.sun.star.sdb.DatabaseContext ) aDatenquellenNamen = oDatenbankKontext.getElementNames() For nCounter = LBound( aDatenquellenNamen ) _ To UBound( aDatenquellenNamen ) oDatenquelle = oDatenbankKontext.getByName _ ( aDatenquellenNamen(nCounter) ) sAusgabe = sAusgabe _ oDatenquelle.Name chr(13) Next nCounter msgbox sAusgabe End Sub works correctly, but my question is: How can i get the name of the specific database which is the current database for literature (by StarBasic-code)? What i mean is: On my own system the name of the literature database is Bibliography, but on a unknown system the name of the literature database can be user-defined. greetings Jrg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] modified bibliographic entries - update
Jozef, There is something you can do fix the problem, create a unique index for the identifier. See the document http://bibliographic.openoffice.org/files/documents/124/1284/HOWTO-increaseFieldSizes-V1.0.sxw for instructions. You can not create the index until you have removed the duplicates but it will prevent you adding new duplicates in the future. regards David On Tuesday 05 April 2005 10:38 pm, Jozef Riha wrote: thank you very much for your quick response. this issue is utterly crucial to me as i am writing thesis w/ many cited sources in it. please, if anyone knows a workaround - except for writing w/ no mistakes - please let me know. if i was programmer i'd write it myself.. bad luck i can only do bash. thank you. cheers, -- joe On Ut, 2005-04-05 at 11:02 +0200, Matthias Basler wrote: Zitat von Jozef Riha [EMAIL PROTECTED]: say, i made a mistake in one of the items and want to do the correction so it gets corrected in all the occurencies. the problem here is that the other occurencies are ignored. instead, the corrected item is added as a new one. Dear Jozef. This problem is well-known to us. It has been requested quite freqently and there are already issues about it: issues 26841 and 44189. Although this issue is considered important by me and others, the current architecture is not build to support this notion, that is, the entries within one document are not linked to each other in any way. Unfortunately there is neither currently a solution available, nor do we (the members of this project) know when there will be. There are however workarounds, e.g. finding and editing all references with the same ID in the document. If you are a very good programmer, you could probably write a macro that does that... For OOoBib, the bibliography extension we are planning, this is already considered, of course. Matthias Basler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Information from NOD32 This message was checked by NOD32 Antivirus System for Linux Mail Server. http://www.nod32.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] 2.0 beta and xforms
I still have dial-up ISP link with a quota and I have used my month,s allocation I will have a wait for a few days before I can look at it. David On Monday 07 March 2005 12:37 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: Since my platform is officially unsupported (um, Sun, how about getting a clue on Mac support?), I've not had a chance to try it, but a public beta was released last week for v2 of the suite. It includes xforms support. Anyone played with it? Bruce - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] Initial comments on OOoBib UI Architectural Design 2.0
I have been in contact with Andreas Martens, the Project Lead for the word-processor project. I outlined the scope, approach and objectives of our project in December 2004. He has discussed them with Oliver Specht the User Interface project leader. Andreas responded - The support of a useful bibliographic interface is on my wish list and we're willing to spent development effort on the Writer side of this. What we need to know are your requirements. The first step should be that your project members agree on an interface which should be supported by the Writer. This has to be discussed with our developers, Oliver Specht will be responsible. After we come to an agreement we create a new feature issue via issuezilla. The (Writer-)implementation could start in March, April.. when the OOo2.0 is finished. So my request for you is to come up with a specification about the interface Writer should support. Oliver will have a look at it [to determine] if we could implement it technically. Then I'll organize development resources to do so. So we need to develop a good understanding of the interface which writer needs to support and propose it to Oliver and Andreas. They are or should be aware of the genreal trend of our proposals and have not issued any warnings or reservations so far. So is the feedback from the potential coders ensured? We can try our best to keep them informed, but they will be very busy until OOo version 2.0 is released. regards David On Sunday 27 February 2005 8:23 am, Matthias Basler wrote: Hi bibliographers, what came into my mind when I just read Marthas comments: Is one of those code developers that will eventually work on OOoBib reading our mailing list? If not, we need to involve them even in early decisions, because they have a clearer idea what features are easy/hard to implement and what of our whishes for OOoBib are more or less unrealistic to code. Those of us with programming skills certainly have some ideas of that aspect, but since most of us have not worked with the actual source code of OOo (in C++) we might propose things that can hardly realized within the current OOo framework. (I for one can only GUESS what is easy/hard/not to realize.) In cases like f.e. the standalone OOoBib questions they might tell us some side effects of our design decisions that we did not yet foresee. I simply want to avaoid that Martha builds a nice GUI concept with us ... and at the end the actual coders tell us they cannot do this or that in a reasonable time frame or cannot do other things at all. So, is the feedback from the potential coders ensured? Matthias Basler [EMAIL PROTECTED] This mail was sent through http://webmail.uni-jena.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] OOo 2.0 coming soon ... and where are we?
Matthias, No offence is taken from fair comment and criticism. I do not have much time as I have to go out soon. But I want to make a brief comment. I have also been frustrated that so little has been done to make even minor corrections and improvements to the existing bibliographic system. I have made many representations to many people in OpenOffice about his. My pet complaint, of about two years standing (issue 16268 June 2003), is that they would not increase the size of some the fields in the bibliographic database, even though a user can do this, if they know how in two minutes. But this has only recently fixed in version 2. And this is not even a code change but just values in table! The OpenOffice developers are disciplined and focused on the development schedule and bibliography is scheduled to 'OOo 2.O Later'. I could not change the schedule. Now that the Bibliographic project has been promoted to being a major project it may have more influence on the scheduling process (if we can work out how and when it is done). I personally have wanted to focus on the major enhancements, but on the project developers web page I proposed a several projects that would assist users of the current system. We just have not found the volunteers to do any of this work. Not even to to write some HOWTO documents about using the current bibliographic system! Maybe we should go through the list of enhancements and bugs and propose a list sorted by priority and try to get them rescheduled. regards David On Friday 25 February 2005 8:26 pm, Matthias Basler wrote: Hi bibliographers, please apologice my a bit caustically tone, but OOo2.0 will be out in some months. We are near the beta and I am tesing current snapshots and hecking / sending issues quite frequently now. And where are we? No doubt, we have made up our mind quite intensely about an architectural framework of the new OOoBib, have throughoutly discussed many details and have proposed and tested several highly intersting concepts. But have the users of OOo1.1.x and OOo2.0 profited by this, so far. I think, mainly not. :-( OOo2.0 will have a lot of new interesting features, some of which I believe are or might be highly important, such as task bars, the OOo Base application and - last, but not least, the new OpenDocument file format, which hopefully will allow for saving complex references in a future version of OOo. But OOo2.0 still has the same bibliographic functionality as OOo1.1.4 - which is, as many users have remarked - simly not practically usable. (OK, the bib. database standard field lengths have changed, but this could already be done manually in older versions. If I have missed out some other improvement, let me know.) Therefore I once again urgently plead, that at least some easy issues as f.e. issue 29910 (http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=29910) which concerns the insert citation dialog, get fixed before OOo2.0, just to let the users know we care about the current OOo versions as well. I believe that even if OOoBib implementation should start after OOo2.0 release (which I really hope), it will take another year or so to get finished. In the meantime the users will have to use the current bibliographic features. So these should get improved just so much, as to be practically usable. I cannot do this: I still have no knowledge of C++ and have no understanding of the current OOo source code. But if anybody of you could get someone who has and ask him/her to fix simple things as the issue 29910 mentioned above I would be very, very grateful. --- P.S. As a remark to David warming up the topic of a standalone app. Yes, I would like that too. Beeing realistic about who will code OOoBib (not one of us probably, and neither me in particular) the Sun developers will probably perfer to code it in C++ and probably (hopefully!) make OOoBib something like the OOoBase application in OOo2.0, that is, a standalone program with the OOo look and feel, which is closely interacting with the other components as f.e. Writer. If I am not mistaken, OOoBib could use exactly this architecture too. I know Martha wrote in the Architectural Design 2.0 A database GUI in a floating window that for Version 1 is called from within an OOoWriter document. but I would personally stronly prefer a standalone app similar to OOo Base - which could then of course, without any problem, be called from within Writer. (Having OOoBib in a Writer window and trying to separate it later, would, on the contrary be much more difficult, I should think.) Anyway, having OOoBib as a separate component will keep the architecture flexible and the two programs Writer and OOoBib separate, which IMHO does improve maintainability. (Plus the already stated advantage that a user does not have to open a writer document, just to do maintenance work or to search in his/her database.) Matthias Basler
Re: [dev-biblio] funding development
On Friday 18 February 2005 02:49, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: On Feb 17, 2005, at 10:37 AM, Matthew Yates wrote: I cannot write the grant myself (I am not a developer and do not know a lot about the openoffice.org organization). However, I do have experience writing grants and would be willing to give advice and/or edit a proposal if anyone is interested. It is a lot of work to write a good one, but I think there is a strong possibility of getting funding. The proposal can be submitted by virtually anyone in the U.S. I think. It is open to universities, non-profit institutions, government organizations, for-profit institutions, and individuals. This is not a bad idea. I'm in the U.S. When's the deadline? My time's really short for the next couple months. If I did do it, I'd need a lot of help. Bruce It sort of leaves me out being in Australia but, It is worth trying. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
