I am all for extending Citeproc, but I agree with Chris that it is important to have a good process in place so not to create a big mess. As others have said before, I would start with documenting the Citeproc format a bit better in human-readable form, to correspond with what the JSON Schema validator does. The Citeproc JSON Schema uses JSON Pointer (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6901), and this could be further extended for additional properties, and to modularize the schema. For things like ORCID support for names I would prefer a consensus, rather than an optional extension mechanism.
Best, Martin Am 22.08.2014 um 22:57 schrieb Maloney, Christopher (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] <malon...@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov>: > This has come up before (e.g. > http://sourceforge.net/p/xbiblio/mailman/message/31972432/). > citeproc-json definitely needs an extension mechanism. > > The question, of course, is how to keep it from becoming another mess, > like with the proliferation of MarkDown formats, for example. Maybe a > GitHub repo where folks could register their own extensions would be a > good idea. I am not familiar enough with json schema to know if it is > modular, so that extensions could import the base and then change things. > > > -- > Chris Maloney > NIH/NLM/NCBI (Contractor) > Building 45, 4AN36D-12 > 301-594-2842 > > > > > > > > "Erik Hetzner" wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I was unable to validate citeproc+json from CrossRef against the >> schema [1] because of additional fields at the top level that were not >> valid. After some discussion with others about this issue, it seemed >> the best thing to do would be to change additionalProperties to false. >> This would allow additional properties at the top level. >> >> I have a pull request pending: >> >> https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/pull/116 >> >> to change the top-level additionalProperties of the csl-data.json >> schema to true. This will allow citeproc+json from CrossRef to >> validate. (Rintze Zelle has told me that Mendeley also allows >> additional properties.) >> >> I’m curious if a) anybody thinks this will cause problems and b) if it >> won’t, should additionalProperties also be allowed in other elements, >> such as names? This would allow, for instance, orcids to be stored in >> citeproc+json, as Martin Fenner does here [2]. >> >> best, Erik >> >> 1. >> https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/blob/master/csl-data.jso >> n >> 2. >> http://blog.martinfenner.org/2013/07/30/citeproc-yaml-for-bibliographies/ >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ---- >> Slashdot TV. >> Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. >> http://tv.slashdot.org/ >> _______________________________________________ >> xbiblio-devel mailing list >> xbiblio-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Slashdot TV. > Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. > http://tv.slashdot.org/ > _______________________________________________ > xbiblio-devel mailing list > xbiblio-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/ _______________________________________________ xbiblio-devel mailing list xbiblio-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
