Frank Bennett <[email protected]> writes:
> Andrea,
>
> Thanks for looking carefully.
>
> One issue is very clear. In the
> disambiguate_ByCiteRetainNamesOnFailureIfYearSuffixNotAvailable test,
> by-cite disambiguation should cycle through name expansions after
> adding names to see if anything helps. The processor currently only
> attempts one "step" of name expansion with this disambiguation rule,
> which is why disambiguation doesn't occur on the second full name in
> that pairing. It's a known limitation at the moment, which may be a
> hangover from days before the disambiguation code was cleaned up and
> made easier to comprehend and control. I'll look into improving on
> that when time permits. I agree that it should be possible -- and if
> you have a running implementation with better behavior, the spec can
> certainly be amended to that effect.
If I understand correctly you agree that expanding rendered names with
initials and, if needed, given-names should be done before adding new
names. This is the way I'm interpreting the spec and this is also the
way citeproc-hs is coded to do.
Another way to intend disambiguation is first to try to add names one by
one, then to try with names plus initials one by one, and then to try
with names plus given-names one by one. This is the way citeproc-js
seems to work. But this is not the way I interpret the spec. So the spec
should be amended only if we think this second disambiguation algorithm
is to be preferred.
> One the last point raised (concerning
> disambiguate_ByCiteDisambiguateCondition), applying the disambiguation
> condition after year-suffix is applied would have the same effect as
> disabling it altogether, since year-suffix always succeeds. I think
> the current behavior there is probably correct, although there must be
> very few styles that apply those rules.
Actually year-suffix always succeeds because you add a suffix even when
there is no year. See:
date_YearSuffixWithNoDate
date_YearSuffixImplicitWithNoDate
which produce:
(John Doe n.d.-a [Accessed: June 01, 1965]; John Doe n.d.-b [Accessed: June
01, 2065])
I must confess that I do not like this solution very much. Actually I
think that the last disambiguation step (evaluating the style with the
disambiguate condition set to true) was intended exactly to deal with
cases where there is not a year to add a suffix to.
On the other hand I understand there may be use cases I'm not aware of
(which means nothing, BTW) that dictate for such a behavior. If this is
true the spec should be amended so that the fifth step becomes the
fourth and the year-suffix is also to be applied to the "no date" term
when it is used. Still, what happens when it is not used?
Andrea
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get your Android app more play: Bring it to the BlackBerry PlayBook
in minutes. BlackBerry App World™ now supports Android™ Apps
for the BlackBerry® PlayBook™. Discover just how easy and simple
it is! http://p.sf.net/sfu/android-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
