Re: Citations, continued

[Rasmus <rasmus@gmx.us>]

Richard Lawrence <richard.lawrence@berkeley.edu> writes:

> 2) There are at least several different backend reference database
> formats (BibTeX, Zotero, etc.) used by Orgsters.  Not all such databases
> use human-readable keys.  Org also has a nice internal format for
> storing reference information: org-bibtex.

Human readable keys are not a deal-breaker IMO.  Important is bibtex and
an entity-like display (e.g. Org displays \alpha as α etc.).

> 4) Because individual Orgsters have widely varying needs, there is some
> disagreement about what `proper' citation support should look like.  (Do
> we need new syntax, or can existing syntax be used?  Which features need
> to be supported by Org, and which can be provided by external tools?
> etc.)
>
> It seems there are three distinct but related problems:

>   1. representing citations in Org documents

>   2. exporting citations in an Org document to a backend document format
>      like LaTeX, ODT, or HTML

>   3. searching for and manipulating keys in a reference database from
>      within Org, and otherwise fostering good communication between
>      such a database and citations in Org documents

I would add:

    4a. Support backends  ...
    4b. ... and represent them internally.

    5. Formatting of citations.

    6. Nice representation in org-mode similar to entities.

As John K said, it is much preferable to have external tools handle 5.  If
there exist an external tool that can format handle formatting based on a
given backend, problem 2. and 5. disappear more or less.

If 5. is solved in elisp (e.g. using bibtex.el), problem 2. is "easy"
across all backends, but results might only be easily clickable/dynamic in
html.

1  → is an org-element.el problem.
3  → is easy for bibtex at least via Reftex.  My understanding is that
     Zotero also has well-supported selection functionality.
4b → allows for easy sharing of complete documents.

> I think a good case can be made for adding new syntax to Org to
> represent citations, instead of repurposing/extending existing syntax
> (most notably, the link syntax).

+1.

> For these reasons, I would support a separate citation syntax, but one
> that can behave like a link when useful.  For example, suppose we
> borrowed the Pandoc [ ... @key1 ...; ... @key2 ...] syntax.  When point
> is on `@key1', C-c C-o could be bound to find the key in the reference
> database, or another useful action, depending on the reference database
> format.

I think we should use "almost-pandoc" cf.

  http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/94412

Namely [@bibtex-key :key value] with handy shortcuts.
E.g. for latex constructs

      @key                       → \textcite{key}
      (@key)                     → \parencite{key}
      [@key :key value]          → ?
      [@key :type mytype]        → \mytype{key}
      [-@key]                    → \nocite{key}
      (pre @key post)            → \parencite[pre][post]{key}
      (pre @key post :key value) → ? 
      
Something like (pre1 @key1 post1 pre1 @key2 post2) is hard to represent
though ('cause it disallows).  Perhaps (pre1 @key1 post1) (pre2 @key2
post2) could be merged like how subscripts are collected?

> As I mentioned in the earlier thread, I think the Pandoc syntax is a
> good place to start, and I think it would be valuable to have the two
> syntaxes be compatible.  But even Pandoc's citation syntax might not be
> general enough to satisfy everyone's needs, so the first step for
> introducing citation syntax to Org should be compiling a list of all the
> things such a syntax should represent.

I think allowing for arbitrary keys is abstract enough to solve all
issues.  It would also be easy to add user-written support.

> The other problems, I think, must wait until a stable citation syntax
> emerges -- export support in particular.

+1.

—Rasmus

-- 
It was you, Jezebel, it was you