I'm pleased as punch with the new bib module and have been writing my new lists with it all day. There is one thing that I could not make work, and I wonder if it is possible at all. I have 2 entries: [1] Some collected volume [2] Some article, in: a journal [reprinted in [1]]. Is it possible to refer back to item [1] automatically, by sticking the "reprinted in" in a "note" field in the database? I tried a number of combinations of \crossref or so, but couldn't get this to work. Suggestions welcome! Thomas
Is it possible to refer back to item [1] automatically, by sticking the "reprinted in" in a "note" field in the database? I tried a number of combinations of \crossref or so, but couldn't get this to work.
I need to repeat my experiments, but I think it worked to use simply \cite in the bibtex entry. Ah, here is one example. It uses xampl.bib, which comes with old distributions of ConTeXt (e.g. teTeX 3.0's distribution). [Taco: The reference to Knuth below comes out as (Knuth, 1981c) even though there are no other 1981 entries for Knuth cited in the text. Is that hard to fix given ConTeXt's way of dealing with bibtex, in that it just incorporates the entire database, in which there are several 1981 entries from Knuth?] ===================== cut here ======== \usemodule[bib] \usemodule[bibltx] \setupbibtex[database=xampl] \starttext Here is a citation to a book that contains a cross reference: \cite[book-crossref]. The bibliography entry (next page) for it should contain a bib reference to another item in the bibliography. \completepublications \stoptext ===================== cut here ======== Here are the relevant entries from xampl.bib, which indicates that it's the crossref= line that you need (not \cite as I said above)v: @BOOK{book-crossref, crossref = "whole-set", title = "Seminumerical Algorithms", volume = 2, series = "The Art of Computer Programming", edition = "Second", year = "{\noopsort{1973c}}1981", note = "This is a cross-referencing BOOK entry", } @BOOK{whole-set, author = "Donald E. Knuth", publisher = "Addison-Wesley", title = "The Art of Computer Programming", series = "Four volumes", year = "{\noopsort{1973a}}{\switchargs{--90}{1968}}", note = "Seven volumes planned (this is a cross-referenced set of BOOKs)", } -Sanjoy `Never underestimate the evil of which men of power are capable.' --Bertrand Russell, _War Crimes in Vietnam_, chapter 1.
Sanjoy Mahajan wrote:
I need to repeat my experiments, but I think it worked to use simply \cite in the bibtex entry. Ah, here is one example. It uses xampl.bib, which comes with old distributions of ConTeXt (e.g. teTeX 3.0's distribution).
Yeah, that's how I expected it to be done.
[Taco: The reference to Knuth below comes out as (Knuth, 1981c) even though there are no other 1981 entries for Knuth cited in the text. Is that hard to fix given ConTeXt's way of dealing with bibtex, in that it just incorporates the entire database, in which there are several 1981 entries from Knuth?]
Problematic. There is a small bit of influence possible: the `c' is inside macro (\maybeyear) that could be redefined (nullified), but that is a document-global solution, and it may not even work too well at that. It's been a long time since I looked at this problem. It is not totally unsolvable, but definately not simple either. Best, Taco
On Sep 10, 2006, at 3:30 PM, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
[Taco: The reference to Knuth below comes out as (Knuth, 1981c) even though there are no other 1981 entries for Knuth cited in the text. Is that hard to fix given ConTeXt's way of dealing with bibtex, in that it just incorporates the entire database, in which there are several 1981 entries from Knuth?]
Problematic. There is a small bit of influence possible: the `c' is inside macro (\maybeyear) that could be redefined (nullified), but that is a document-global solution, and it may not even work too well at that. It's been a long time since I looked at this problem. It is not totally unsolvable, but definately not simple either.
Taco, I just ran into the same question. When using a citation style that doesn't quote the year (like refcommand=num), it seems more logical to drop the maybeyear letter. It seems to work setting \def\maybeyear{\gobbleoneargument} I haven't seen any side effects yet, but maybe I'm missing something. Would it be possible to make this behavior a global option/value? Best Thomas
Thomas A. Schmitz wrote:
I just ran into the same question. When using a citation style that doesn't quote the year (like refcommand=num), it seems more logical to drop the maybeyear letter. It seems to work setting
\def\maybeyear{\gobbleoneargument}
I haven't seen any side effects yet, but maybe I'm missing something. Would it be possible to make this behavior a global option/value?
The problem with redefining \maybeyear is that it affects all citations equally: when you have three Knuth records with the same year and two Tuftes with the same year in the database, then if you use only one of Knuths but both Tuftes, you can no longer see which one of the Tuftes you were citing. I could add an interface setting, so that you would do not have to resort to using \def, but it would be much better if I could fix the problem internally. Needs some thinking, though Taco
On Sep 15, 2006, at 9:57 AM, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
The problem with redefining \maybeyear is that it affects all citations equally: when you have three Knuth records with the same year and two Tuftes with the same year in the database, then if you use only one of Knuths but both Tuftes, you can no longer see which one of the Tuftes you were citing.
I could add an interface setting, so that you would do not have to resort to using \def, but it would be much better if I could fix the problem internally. Needs some thinking, though
Taco
Yes, I see the difficulty. I don't know enough about bibtex styles and habits in general, but I'm just wondering if \maybeyear should be used in a different way - in my discipline, I think it would. Consider this example: Hoekwater, First article, journalA, vol. 5 (2006) Hoekwater, Second article, journalB, vol. 10 (2006) IMHO, bibtex should now generate keys such as Hoek2006a and Hoek2006b or authoryear references like Hoekwater (2006a) and Hoekwater (2006b), but it should not (!) append the "a" and "b" to the years in the bibliographic list itself. But I may be wrong here - what do you and other users say? Should the (2006) in the example above come out as "(2006a)" and "(2006b)"? And as I was suggesting: if you use numered references, I think it would be best to just switch maybeyear off completely, so my suggestion would be to have a switch "maybeyear = on/off" for the \setuppublicationlist. Best Thomas
Thomas A. Schmitz wrote:
IMHO, bibtex should now generate keys such as Hoek2006a and Hoek2006b or authoryear references like Hoekwater (2006a) and Hoekwater (2006b), but it should not (!) append the "a" and "b" to the years in the bibliographic list itself.
Actually, sometimes it should, namely in authoryear styles with the list in database ordering as opposed to cite ordering.
But I may be wrong here - what do you and other users say? Should the (2006) in the example above come out as "(2006a)" and "(2006b)"? And as I was suggesting: if you use numered references, I think it would be best to just switch maybeyear off completely, so my suggestion would be to have a switch "maybeyear = on/off" for the \setuppublicationlist.
Sure, that is simple. Will upload in a few minutes Taco
On Sep 15, 2006, at 11:47 AM, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
Thomas A. Schmitz wrote:
IMHO, bibtex should now generate keys such as Hoek2006a and Hoek2006b or authoryear references like Hoekwater (2006a) and Hoekwater (2006b), but it should not (!) append the "a" and "b" to the years in the bibliographic list itself.
Actually, sometimes it should, namely in authoryear styles with the list in database ordering as opposed to cite ordering.
Oh dear, once you go into the gory details of bibliographies, there's no end to it...
But I may be wrong here - what do you and other users say? Should the (2006) in the example above come out as "(2006a)" and "(2006b)"? And as I was suggesting: if you use numered references, I think it would be best to just switch maybeyear off completely, so my suggestion would be to have a switch "maybeyear = on/off" for the \setuppublicationlist.
Sure, that is simple. Will upload in a few minutes
Taco
Thanks Taco, that's sweet. Maybe other users can chime in. I'm still thinking whether it would be useful to add an option that would append maybeyyear only to the reference key, not to the list... Such as a bibliographic style that would produce this sort of list: Hoekwater 2006a = Hoekwater, "Article 1," JournalA 2 (2006) 20--30 Hoekwater 2006b = Hoekwater, "Article 2," JournalB 2 (2006) 30--40 But disregard this if you think it's silly or if it's too difficult to implement.
IMHO, bibtex should now generate keys such as Hoek2006a and Hoek2006b or authoryear references like Hoekwater (2006a) and Hoekwater (2006b), but it should not (!) append the "a" and "b" to the years in the bibliographic list itself. But I may be wrong here - what do you and other users say? Should the (2006) in the example above come out as "(2006a)" and "(2006b)"?
At first I was sure that (2006a) and (2006b) are the right answer for the list. Othewise how else could the user know which entry to look up when they see, say, Hoekwater (2006b) in the text? But I just figured out the answer to that question: Users count 'a', 'b', ... starting with the first 2006 entry. However, I still don't think it's a good idea to make them do that. Let's not ask users to do what computers do very well (counting)!
And as I was suggesting: if you use numered references, I think it would be best to just switch maybeyear off completely, so my suggestion would be to have a switch "maybeyear = on/off" for the \setuppublicationlist.
Let me know whether I'm understanding it correctly. If you have a numbered reference list, then the year can still end up with a letter tag, e.g. 1. Taco Hoekwater. JournalA. 2006a 2. Taco Hoekwater. JournalB. 2006b Ah, I hadn't thought of that problem. You're right, there shouldn't be a maybeyear in this case since the list number disambiguates the reference completely. -Sanjoy `Never underestimate the evil of which men of power are capable.' --Bertrand Russell, _War Crimes in Vietnam_, chapter 1.
On Sep 15, 2006, at 2:34 PM, Sanjoy Mahajan wrote:
At first I was sure that (2006a) and (2006b) are the right answer for the list. Othewise how else could the user know which entry to look up when they see, say, Hoekwater (2006b) in the text? But I just figured out the answer to that question: Users count 'a', 'b', ... starting with the first 2006 entry. However, I still don't think it's a good idea to make them do that. Let's not ask users to do what computers do very well (counting)!
Let me know whether I'm understanding it correctly. If you have a numbered reference list, then the year can still end up with a letter tag, e.g.
1. Taco Hoekwater. JournalA. 2006a 2. Taco Hoekwater. JournalB. 2006b
Ah, I hadn't thought of that problem. You're right, there shouldn't be a maybeyear in this case since the list number disambiguates the reference completely.
Sanjoy, yes, I agree completely: let the computer do the counting and bookkeeping! And you've hit the nail on the head: what I meant was, in cases where the form of the list makes the reference completely unambiguous (because it is numbered or because keys/authoryear tags are prefixed), adding another number in the bibliographic entry is superfluous and somewhat ugly. So question to Taco: maybe we need three options for maybeyear? 1. off [always] 2. on [always] 3. on for tags and authoryear etc., off for the date entry in the list itself. Am I making sense? Are we working you to the bones? ;-) Best Thomas
Thomas A. Schmitz wrote:
So question to Taco: maybe we need three options for maybeyear?
1. off [always]
This is the one that is missing, yes? Because the \setuppublicationlist[maybeyear=off] is actually option 3.
2. on [always]
3. on for tags and authoryear etc., off for the date entry in the list itself.
Sanjoy, thanks for your rely. Of course you're quite right, this is the wau to go, and it works. But my question was imprecise because I did not mention what was causing the problem: I'm working with split bibliographies and want to refer in chapter 2 to an item already included in the biblio of chapter 2. If I just put a \cite command somewhere, this item will be included a second time in the list of chapter 2. So my question is: this item does already have a counter attached to it. Is it possible to refer to this raw counter across chapters? Like so: Chapter 1 [1] main reference Chapter 2 [2] another thing [3] and yet another [reprinted in [1]] without having [1] main reference repeated. This my very well be impossible, I'm just wondering. Thanks, and all best Thomas On Sep 9, 2006, at 12:40 AM, Sanjoy Mahajan wrote:
Is it possible to refer back to item [1] automatically, by sticking the "reprinted in" in a "note" field in the database? I tried a number of combinations of \crossref or so, but couldn't get this to work.
I need to repeat my experiments, but I think it worked to use simply \cite in the bibtex entry. Ah, here is one example. It uses xampl.bib, which comes with old distributions of ConTeXt (e.g. teTeX 3.0's distribution).
[Taco: The reference to Knuth below comes out as (Knuth, 1981c) even though there are no other 1981 entries for Knuth cited in the text. Is that hard to fix given ConTeXt's way of dealing with bibtex, in that it just incorporates the entire database, in which there are several 1981 entries from Knuth?]
===================== cut here ======== \usemodule[bib] \usemodule[bibltx] \setupbibtex[database=xampl] \starttext
Here is a citation to a book that contains a cross reference: \cite[book-crossref]. The bibliography entry (next page) for it should contain a bib reference to another item in the bibliography.
\completepublications \stoptext ===================== cut here ========
Here are the relevant entries from xampl.bib, which indicates that it's the crossref= line that you need (not \cite as I said above)v:
@BOOK{book-crossref, crossref = "whole-set", title = "Seminumerical Algorithms", volume = 2, series = "The Art of Computer Programming", edition = "Second", year = "{\noopsort{1973c}}1981", note = "This is a cross-referencing BOOK entry", }
@BOOK{whole-set, author = "Donald E. Knuth", publisher = "Addison-Wesley", title = "The Art of Computer Programming", series = "Four volumes", year = "{\noopsort{1973a}}{\switchargs{--90}{1968}}", note = "Seven volumes planned (this is a cross-referenced set of BOOKs)", }
-Sanjoy
`Never underestimate the evil of which men of power are capable.' --Bertrand Russell, _War Crimes in Vietnam_, chapter 1. _______________________________________________ ntg-context mailing list ntg-context@ntg.nl http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
Thomas A. Schmitz wrote:
Sanjoy,
thanks for your rely. Of course you're quite right, this is the wau to go, and it works. But my question was imprecise because I did not mention what was causing the problem: I'm working with split bibliographies and want to refer in chapter 2 to an item already included in the biblio of chapter 2. If I just put a \cite command somewhere, this item will be included a second time in the list of chapter 2. So my question is: this item does already have a counter attached to it. Is it possible to refer to this raw counter across chapters? Like so:
Chapter 1
[1] main reference
Chapter 2
[2] another thing
[3] and yet another [reprinted in [1]]
without having [1] main reference repeated. This my very well be impossible, I'm just wondering.
You can try this: \def\silentcite[#1]% {\bgroup \let\addthisref\gobbleoneargument \cite[#1]% \egroup} (untested). If that does not work, it is not possible. Taco
On Sep 11, 2006, at 7:11 PM, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
You can try this:
\def\silentcite[#1]% {\bgroup \let\addthisref\gobbleoneargument \cite[#1]% \egroup}
(untested). If that does not work, it is not possible.
Taco
Taco, thanks for the suggestion. It doesn't work (still produces an entry in the bibliography), but it's not a big deal, these are very special cases, and I can edit the bbl manually in order to get them right. On a related note: all lovers of the bib module (and I know there are many of them out there) may be interested to know of two nice things. I found them out while I was switching my bibliographies to the new system. So if you use the one and only editor, emacs, you may want to try this: 1. reftex works with context! It cannot automatically determine the database it is supposed to use (I have to look into the customization again to see whether it can be taught to do so), but you can tell it explicitly about your .bib file, and then, all the usual keybindings work, you get a nice buffer where you can choose your references etc. There was a discussion a while ago on the mailing list, and my impression was it didn't work, so I was thrilled to see it did! 2. I discovered another nice little app that works within emacs. It's called ebib. It is not very good as an editor for bibtex databases, but it has a great tab-completion feature for inserting references into your files. I tweaked it a bit so it would insert the proper \cite[] and \nocite[] commands for ConTeXt, and it is the fastest and most convenient thing I've ever seen. Maybe I should say something about on the wiki? Anyway, Taco, thanks for your help, and all best Thomas
Thomas,
Is it possible to refer to this raw counter across chapters?
Not sure -- it is beyond my ConTeXt bib module competence, but I hope one of the resident experts has an idea... -Sanjoy `Never underestimate the evil of which men of power are capable.' --Bertrand Russell, _War Crimes in Vietnam_, chapter 1.
participants (3)
-
Sanjoy Mahajan -
Taco Hoekwater -
Thomas A. Schmitz