On Sat, 18 Jul 2009, Rick Ratchford wrote: > All I know is that this is a book. I have a vast library of technical > books and this is the ONLY one that uses this convention. Even my copy of > "A New Kind of Science" by Wolfram doesn't use this convention. :-b
There are many conventions for citations in books, reports, articles, and other documents that cite original sources. When I was in academia, the ecological literature (books, papers, etc.) used a (name date) format; e.g., (Smith 1962), or (Williams and Jones 1981), or (Foobar et al. 1954). The bibliography or reference section (and there is a difference between those two) was arranged in alphabetic order. Many other technical books (including mine) use a numeric citation, e.g., [20], and the bibliography is numeric rather than alphabetic. Still other technical documents use the author abreviation plus two-digit year system which is what you apparently encountered; e.g., [ORA92] or [SMI01]. They are all common. Personally, I like the author/year system because it's explicit and easy to comprehend without requiring looking at the references section. Regardless, it's up to the publisher, country, or the practice of a particular discipline which one is used. It's unfortunate that you had such difficulty figuring out the citation system. Rich -- Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D. | Integrity Credibility Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc. | Innovation <http://www.appl-ecosys.com> Voice: 503-667-4517 Fax: 503-667-8863 _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
