On 5/24/2021 22:12, Alan Braslau wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2021 17:53:49 -0400 Rik Kabel wrote:

...

This is intended. Or rather, it is a side-effect of the intended behavior.

If you add an editor ("editor={Baz, Bar}") you will get something like:

Foo, B. (1983). Title of the paper. In B. Baz (Ed.), /Booktitle/. Author.

And if you then add a publisher ("publisher={Paymefirst}") you will get:

Foo, B. (1983). Title of the paper. In B. Bar (Ed.), Booktitle. Paymefirst.

The APA presumes that you have both an editor and a publisher for pieces contained in other works. It calls for the use of the author as publisher if no publisher is present. It is silent about what to do if you have no editor. It looks like a missing editor field should be caught. What should the rule be?

Actually, @inproceedings should not be used without an editor - makes no sense. If the author of the paper happens to be the editor, then the .bib data file should define this with an editor= field.

We can change the behavior if a clear case can be made as to what fallback would make sense. Keep in mind the dictum: "garbage in/garbage out"...

Alan

For the case of works within works (inproceedings, inbook, incollection, perhaps conference) I would think that the simplest solution is to simply drop it, so that in the example above one would simply get: Foo, B. (1983). Title of the paper. In /Booktitle/. Paymefirst. Although I do think that, at least for inproceedings, lack of an editor should at least be flagged. A simple compilation of works may have no named editor, of I see no reason to require it for inbook or incollection. Cheap publishers regularly put out such collections of out-of-copyright works. The implicit assumption that a work with no documented publisher is a self-published work is not especially to my liking -- publishers may have good reason to not identify themselves (think of the publishers of the works of Spinoza and, in part, Voltaire) -- but I understand that the APA thinks it important. Of course, if you cannot document the publisher for an entry, you can explicitly list it as unknown or /sine nomine/, as appropriate, to avoid the infelicity of having the author's name just stuck in there. -- Rik

On 2021-05-25, Alan Braslau wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2021 23:10:34 -0400 Rik Kabel wrote:

...

On 5/24/2021 22:12, Alan Braslau wrote:

...

On Mon, 24 May 2021 17:53:49 -0400 Rik Kabel wrote:

...

This is intended. Or rather, it is a side-effect of the intended behavior.

If you add an editor ("editor={Baz, Bar}") you will get something like:

Foo, B. (1983). Title of the paper. In B. Baz (Ed.), /Booktitle/. Author.

And if you then add a publisher ("publisher={Paymefirst}") you will get:

Foo, B. (1983). Title of the paper. In B. Bar (Ed.), Booktitle. Paymefirst.

The APA presumes that you have both an editor and a publisher for pieces contained in other works. It calls for the use of the author as publisher if no publisher is present. It is silent about what to do if you have no editor. It looks like a missing editor field should be caught. What should the rule be?

Actually, @inproceedings should not be used without an editor - makes no sense. If the author of the paper happens to be the editor, then the .bib data file should define this with an editor= field.

We can change the behavior if a clear case can be made as to what fallback would make sense. Keep in mind the dictum: "garbage in/garbage out"...

Alan

For the case of works within works (inproceedings, inbook, incollection, perhaps conference) I would think that the simplest solution is to simply drop it, so that in the example above one would simply get:

Foo, B. (1983). Title of the paper. In /Booktitle/. Paymefirst.

Although I do think that, at least for inproceedings, lack of an editor should at least be flagged. A simple compilation of works may have no named editor, of I see no reason to require it for inbook or incollection. Cheap publishers regularly put out such collections of out-of-copyright works.

The implicit assumption that a work with no documented publisher is a self-published work is not especially to my liking -- publishers may have good reason to not identify themselves (think of the publishers of the works of Spinoza and, in part, Voltaire) -- but I understand that the APA thinks it important. Of course, if you cannot document the publisher for an entry, you can explicitly list it as unknown or /sine nomine/, as appropriate, to avoid the infelicity of having the author's name just stuck in there.

I sent a simple fix to Hans that handles the missing editor, silently. Someone who would want "Anonymous" or "unknown", or anything else can always put editor="Anonymous", etc. in their .bib database.

Thank you all for the precious comments. The current LMTX appears to have almost fixed my issue, except that inproceedings entries without a publisher have the text "Author" instead of the publisher's name. I must say that I have no requirement to use the APA style specifically; I do it only because it uses the format (Name, Year) for the citation. I guess that I could use another style (aps seems fine) and just customize the citation format. I have tried with \usebtxdataset[main.bib] \setupbtx[default:cite][alternative=authoryear] \usebtxdefinitions[aps] but it seems that the setup command has no effect: the citations still use numbers. Nicola

On Fri, 28 May 2021, Alan Braslau wrote:

On Thu, 27 May 2021 20:21:55 -0000 (UTC) Nicola wrote:

...

Thank you all for the precious comments.

The current LMTX appears to have almost fixed my issue, except that inproceedings entries without a publisher have the text "Author" instead of the publisher's name.

I must say that I have no requirement to use the APA style specifically; I do it only because it uses the format (Name, Year) for the citation. I guess that I could use another style (aps seems fine) and just customize the citation format. I have tried with

\usebtxdataset[main.bib] \setupbtx[default:cite][alternative=authoryear] \usebtxdefinitions[aps]

but it seems that the setup command has no effect: the citations still use numbers.

APS is an inherently numbered citation format.

If you have not defined a publisher, how should ANY format place the undefined publisher's name?

Simply leave it blank? Aditya

On 2021-05-28, Alan Braslau wrote:

On Fri, 28 May 2021 13:02:10 -0400 (EDT) Aditya Mahajan wrote:

...

...

If you have not defined a publisher, how should ANY format place the undefined publisher's name?

Simply leave it blank?

If there is no publisher, then @unpublished is a better category. APA explicitly, and for good reason, accounts for self-publishing, indicating that the Author was the publisher.

Ah ok, that explains the output I was obtaining. So, I am using the wrong bibliographic style for my purposes. In practice, at least in Computer Science, publishers (and also editors) are often omitted in references (it's more a "don't care", rather than a "don't know" thing, though).

If a publisher does not exist, was it published?

If the publisher is unknown, then why not state that: publisher="unknown publisher", or whatever?

Strictly speaking, your reasoning makes perfect sense, and I am all for enforcing constraints if a given bibliographic style requires them. But then, there might be alternatives for when one does not need to adhere to those styles. Does ConTeXt (LMTX) currently provide anything else besides apa and aps? I have read the BibTeX manual looong time ago, but I remember that there were mandatory and optional fields for each reference type. My memory may fail me, but I think that Editor and Publisher were not mandatory fields for inproceedings and article (I think Publisher is mandatory for book). Is there a bibliographic style in ConTeXt that follows those rules? Bibliography management is very sophisticated in ConTeXt (much more than LaTeX) and I have not grasped all of its details yet. It seems to me that it has also evolved quite a bit in recent years. So, the "ConTeXt way" of doing bibliographies still eludes me to some extent. Nicola

On 5/28/2021 16:33, Alan Braslau wrote:

On Fri, 28 May 2021 19:52:19 -0000 (UTC) Nicola wrote:

...

...

If there is no publisher, then @unpublished is a better category. APA explicitly, and for good reason, accounts for self-publishing, indicating that the Author was the publisher. Ah ok, that explains the output I was obtaining. So, I am using the wrong bibliographic style for my purposes. In practice, at least in Computer Science, publishers (and also editors) are often omitted in references (it's more a "don't care", rather than a "don't know" thing, though).

...

If a publisher does not exist, was it published?

If the publisher is unknown, then why not state that: publisher="unknown publisher", or whatever? Strictly speaking, your reasoning makes perfect sense, and I am all for enforcing constraints if a given bibliographic style requires them. But then, there might be alternatives for when one does not need to adhere to those styles. Does ConTeXt (LMTX) currently provide anything else besides apa and aps?

I have read the BibTeX manual looong time ago, but I remember that there were mandatory and optional fields for each reference type. My memory may fail me, but I think that Editor and Publisher were not mandatory fields for inproceedings and article (I think Publisher is mandatory for book). Is there a bibliographic style in ConTeXt that follows those rules?

Bibliography management is very sophisticated in ConTeXt (much more than LaTeX) and I have not grasped all of its details yet. It seems to me that it has also evolved quite a bit in recent years. So, the "ConTeXt way" of doing bibliographies still eludes me to some extent. In writing the ConTeXt bibliography system, we tried to base this on references, indeed following the original bibtex manual for its definitions. The APA style follows the APA style guide as best as possible.

The APS style is intended as a simple example of a numbered bibliography minimalist style.

Multiple other styles exist out there, more or less well defined. The problem is that most of them are not very rigorous, and they are greatly abused. Many publishers follow their own (quirky) bibliography styles.

The Context system started out as sort of a database handling subsystem, useful in publishing. It is entirely tune-able, through setups and parameters. However, the system is complex, so the customization is not quite as easy as originally intended. Note that the original bibtex system was conceived in order to have this configurability, however few were those who mastered writing bibliography styles, and even carefully crafted styles, for example as implemented by the APS RevTeX, were buggy and had a number of known, serious limitations requiring manual intervention.

We could, and have had the intention of, writing other bibliography styles. But there must be a motivation as well as a clearly defined specification, for otherwise we will be heading down a rabbit hole of differing expectations and endless tweaking.

As to "don't care" concerning publishers, this is not very academic. Indeed, many famous books have been published by various publishers, in particular for different markets. It is important to say, for each one might be slightly different, have different pagination for example, and even certain edits of the text. One might also not pay attention to the edition, but this too can lead to major differences (even, and especially in computer science).

Thomas Schmitz, one of the originators of the bibliography project, will tell you to take the APA style as a model, and then modify it as you wish to your own needs. I further took this to heart, trying to write the macros as somewhat standard definitions that one could modify as needed without breaking the entire system.

And then there are clearly bugs that can be fixed. In the case of a missing publisher, it is not simply left blank because the APA style explicitly tells us to put "Author" when there is no defined publisher, so this is a feature, not a bug.

Alan

The APA does not attempt to define bibliographies. It defines reference lists (and more specifically, reference lists for APA journal articles), and there is a difference. The reference list, as defined in the APA guide, simply exists to point the reader to the cited document (whatever 'document' might mean). Bibliographies, as the APA guide acknowledges, can be much richer, although they do not say it that way. Looking at the 6th edition of the APA guide (I have not reviewed the 7th edition guide, but as far as I know ConTeXt used the 6th edition), I note that example 36, a symposium contribution, does not have a publisher name. However, it does appear that ConTeXt would require a publisher for this and the following examples which have a DOI but no publisher. This may be an error, but whether on the part of the APA or ConTeXt or both I cannot say. For books, the APA guide does not require a publisher if a URL is provided, and ConTeXt handles this properly. As with the use of DOIs for journal articles, this is consistent with the concept of a reference list, in which entries give only the information necessary to locate the document cited by the writer (with the usual caveats about the volatility and durability of electronic media and URLs). With either reference lists or bibliographies I can imagine circumstances where it might be desirable to suppress one or more of the publisher, the date, the author, and the title. Consider a reference list of works by one author -- there is no need to state the author name in each entry. Similarly a list of works published in a given year, or by a specific publisher, or editions of one title. I do not mean to suggest that ConTeXt should support these, but simply suggest that even so-called 'required' fields may not always be required if they are implicit. -- Rik