Re: Citation syntax: a revised proposal

[jorge.alfaro-murillo@yale.edu (Jorge A. Alfaro-Murillo)]

Stefan Nobis writes:

> jorge.alfaro-murillo@yale.edu (Jorge A. Alfaro-Murillo) writes: 
> 
>> From what I read in this and the previous thread, the new 
>> proposal tries more or less to reimplement BibTeX in org. 
> 
> No, that's wrong, not the database should be replaced. The goal 
> is to make citations a first class citizen in the org world (so 
> no fallback to LaTeX commands or links with special handlings 
> are needed).

I see, so in the examples provided Doe99 is only the key, org 
would not have to know that the author name is Doe and its year is 
1999, or any other information about the citation. I thought it 
was more or less the equivalent of implementing natbib 
(http://merkel.zoneo.net/Latex/natbib.php) in org, a way to decide 
if I wanted textual, parenthesis or numerical citations, and thus 
you would have to go to the process of determining what 
information each citation needs, for example: an article always 
has an author, a book always has a publisher, but a book can have 
an author or an editor if each chapter has a different author, 
that kind of thing, among many other complicated things. Sorry for 
the noise.

But now it is not clear to me what the actual org reference points 
to.  If it is the actual reference, I mean the article's PDF or 
URL, what would you do when you need to cite a physical book? Also 
in this case you will not be able to produce a proper bibliography 
when exporting since the key cannot contain all the information 
needed. Now if the reference points to be entry for that reference 
in a database, isn't there a lot of compatibility problems if one 
uses one type of database vs another? Again here you will not be 
able to produce the bibliography when exporting

-- 
Jorge.