Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's references: new policy?

Hi, On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 05:48:15AM -0700, Ralf Stephan wrote: > On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 1:03:27 AM UTC+2, John H Palmieri wrote: > > > > - all references should be, insofar as possible, in a standard form > > > > There is one standard form for everything, even old papers, the

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's references: new policy?

>>> As discussed in another thread [1]_ on sage-devel recently, I propose >>> changing our policy toward references: >>> >>> - all references should be put into a master bibliography file >>> >> >> There is one significant drawback to this: it will mean that a lot of >> ticket branches will be

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's references: new policy?

On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 9:39:28 AM UTC-7, Salvatore Stella wrote: > > * Thierry [2016-09-21 > 18:35:25]: > > >Hi, > > > >bikeshedding for bikeshedding: > > > >- if we decide to centralize everything in a single file (but we should > be > >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's references: new policy?

On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 11:35:30 AM UTC-5, Thierry (sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote: > > Hi, > > bikeshedding for bikeshedding: > > - if we decide to centralize everything in a single file (but we should be > aware that a backward move (e.g. for modularization) will require some >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's references: new policy?

* Thierry [2016-09-21 18:35:25]: Hi, bikeshedding for bikeshedding: - if we decide to centralize everything in a single file (but we should be aware that a backward move (e.g. for modularization) will require some work), why not using bibtex (there must be

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's references: new policy?

Hi, bikeshedding for bikeshedding: - if we decide to centralize everything in a single file (but we should be aware that a backward move (e.g. for modularization) will require some work), why not using bibtex (there must be some sphinx interface somewhere), to that we keep all information

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's references: new policy?

There may be two issues here. - How should references be written in source code? - How should references appear in documentation output? The default behavior in Sphinx is to use the source code citation name also in the output. I don't know how hard it would be to change that. We can have

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's references: new policy?

>From working on stuff that involves 100+ references, even having [1] causes problems. Then you also have essentially random numbers that can change on every new version of Sage. Also, I feel doing stuff like "Foo in [1]" can be overly verbose to redundant at times. So I am strongly for

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's references: new policy?

Am Mittwoch, 21. September 2016 13:49:57 UTC+2 schrieb Johan S. R. Nielsen: > > With MR numbers, do you mean a link of the type [MR3352496]? > Yes! (Except, that in a compiled document such links could be transformed into a link such as [1]. > > well, for preprints clearly there is of

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's references: new policy?

On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 11:52:57 AM UTC, Martin R wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 21. September 2016 13:36:31 UTC+2 schrieb Dima Pasechnik: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 9:36:06 AM UTC, Martin R wrote: >>> >>> well, for preprints clearly there is of course the arXiv number

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's references: new policy?

Am Mittwoch, 21. September 2016 13:36:31 UTC+2 schrieb Dima Pasechnik: > > > > On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 9:36:06 AM UTC, Martin R wrote: >> >> well, for preprints clearly there is of course the arXiv number and for >> sciences without a good database, there is doi. >> >> concerning

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's references: new policy?

> Having said this, I again would argue for an option to have aliases. > > E.g. say there is a popular Arxiv preprint cited 10 times in the source, > which then becomes > a publication. It is really unnecessary to change all these 10 citations? That's a good point. But does Sphinx support such

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's references: new policy?

With MR numbers, do you mean a link of the type [MR3352496]? > well, for preprints clearly there is of course the arXiv number and for > sciences without a good database, there is doi. Neither arXiv nor DOI completely catalogues all publications. I don't know how many such cases appear in

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's references: new policy?

On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 9:36:06 AM UTC, Martin R wrote: > > well, for preprints clearly there is of course the arXiv number and for > sciences without a good database, there is doi. > > concerning readability, there is a well known justification for using > sequential numbers > we

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's references: new policy?

well, for preprints clearly there is of course the arXiv number and for sciences without a good database, there is doi. concerning readability, there is a well known justification for using sequential numbers I'm not making this up, I used this to organise the references for www.findstat.org,

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's references: new policy?

On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 8:46:13 AM UTC, David Roe wrote: > > Preprints won't have MR numbers. I also find MR numbers less readable. > and not all the CS-related publications make it into MR database, either. > > We could just append letters ("a" then "b," etc) if there are

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's references: new policy?

Preprints won't have MR numbers. I also find MR numbers less readable. We could just append letters ("a" then "b," etc) if there are collisions. David On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:38 AM, 'Martin R' via sage-devel < sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Why not use the MR number as reference