Re: BibTeX file from debian/upstream data (Was: New Debian Science metapackages)
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 10:58:57PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > From my perspective the way you are *refering* to a programm in a
> > publication is perfectly different than citing a publication. Please
> > have a look at the examples Michael (mpqc, cp2k) or yesterday I checked
> > for publications about Jmol (but failed) and detected a clear statement
> > of the authors at their homepage how they want people who use Jmol
> > how they should cite it.
> Reading the instructions on the Jmol page, it is clear to me that they want
> that, when cited in an academic manuscript, their work appears as "Jmol: an
> open-source Java viewer for chemical structures in 3D. http://www.jmol.org/" in
> the reference list. Reference managers like Bibus or the proprietary EndNote
> are able to follow this requirement, as they give a class to the reference
> information (article, book, etc.). In the case of Jmol, I think that this is
> exactly the information that should be in the first reference recorded in
> debian/upstream. I have never thought that field differently.
> If you want to record the class of the reference through the use of a different
> field (Reference for books and articles, Cite-As for URLs), why not, but I
> recommend to first check if the BibTeX format, which defines the sub-fields in
> the Reference fied, is able to manage this directly.
Could somebody please check out how to handle this in BibTeX?
> See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microattribution for a broader point
> of view on academic citations.
I have no problem with broader point and as I said I'm perfectly in
favour to display the data as requested by Upstream. However, we have
logically a different type of data which should be reflected in the
structure of the data. This different structure was the cause why
Michael tried to hack around this.
If you look at the template for the tasks page at
beginning at line 168 and find a common way to specify a rendering of
the current publication data and the "Cite-As" data I'd be more than
happy but I simply fail to cope with this reasonably (=non-hackish).
That's why my suggestion: Use Cite-As as different data with different
rendering (can be injected freely in the Cite-As field) and display this
above the publication data. Every patch implementing something more
elegant is very welcome.