Canonical Locations?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Canonical Locations?

James Howison
I wanted to download the latest version of citeproc to see what annote
support there was (see next email.  Forgive me but did we settle on the
canonical SVN  and tracker locations?

This is the tracker, right:

http://citeproc.x2x2x.org/projects/citeproc/

and this is the canonical svn repositiory:

http://citeproc-source.x2x2x.org/svn/citeproc

if so we should probably document both of these on

http://xbiblio.sourceforge.net/

Perhaps a new tab saying "Development"?

I find the site pretty, which is important ;), but kinda confusing on
"where the code is".

The link to the SF project is fine but if we're only using the mailing
list there it will a) be confusing and b) look like nothing is
happening c) split things like bug reporting.

I suggest that we edit the Project Summary to point to
http://citeproc.x2x2x.org/projects/citeproc/ and put a txt REAME into
the top level of CVS pointing to
http://citeproc-source.x2x2x.org/svn/citeproc.  And an issue into the
trackers pointing at the Trac install.

Alternatively we could turn off access to the CVS and Tracker on SF and
put a link to the Trac homepage in the project description and link to
that from the "Development" (was Project) tab of citeproc.sf.net

Make sense?

--James
+1 315 395 4056
Details: <http://freelancepropaganda.com/jameshowison.vcf>



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Canonical Locations?

Bruce D'Arcus
On Apr 7, 2005, at 3:06 PM, James Howison wrote:

> Make sense?

Yes.  I'm away at a conference, and have MAJOR deadline pressures this
month.  I'll fix this stuff when I can though.

Bruce



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Canonical Locations?

Bruce D'Arcus
In reply to this post by James Howison
Oh, one reason I've not prominently listed the links to the code is
that they're still in flux.  One David figures out how to close ticket
1 and 3 (and thus that I can format my book correctly!), then we need
to look into some architectural changes.

Bruce



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

annotations

Bruce D'Arcus
In reply to this post by James Howison
On Apr 7, 2005, at 3:06 PM, James Howison wrote:

> I wanted to download the latest version of citeproc to see what annote
> support there was (see next email).

I didn't get a "next email" but I can answer this: there is none yet.

It will be really easy to add to CSL, but there are some complications
that would need to be ironed out with the source data.  Put simply,
what is the annotation markup, where do the annotations reside, and how
do they get configured?

While there's finally some momentum on the MODS list for adding inline
markup for this sort of stuff, currently the MODS "note" element does
not allow any additional children; just plain text.

I have my annotations in separate linked files (or sometimes embedded
in the mods:extension element), using a custom markup.

Something to ponder.

Bruce



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: annotations

James Howison
On Apr 8, 2005, at 11:25 AM, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:

>
> On Apr 7, 2005, at 3:06 PM, James Howison wrote:
>
>> I wanted to download the latest version of citeproc to see what
>> annote support there was (see next email).
>
> I didn't get a "next email" but I can answer this: there is none yet.

I didn't send it because I figured that out ;)

> It will be really easy to add to CSL, but there are some complications
> that would need to be ironed out with the source data.  Put simply,
> what is the annotation markup, where do the annotations reside, and
> how do they get configured?
>
> While there's finally some momentum on the MODS list for adding inline
> markup for this sort of stuff, currently the MODS "note" element does
> not allow any additional children; just plain text.
>
> I have my annotations in separate linked files (or sometimes embedded
> in the mods:extension element), using a custom markup.

I then remembered your blog entry on it.  Thinking more about annotated
bibliographies I'm unconvinced that it makes sense to store the
annotation in the MODS record.  Abstracts certainly.  But not only are
annotations a per-user thing they should be a "per-purpose" thing, ie a
good annotated bibliography presents the articles in some kind of
conceptual order, rather than alpha or crono, or at least structured by
topic.  And the annotations should either flow or be focused on similar
questions, questions which will change "per-purpose".

Off the top of my head, I'm thinking more in terms of a separate
database of annotations, many per cite, which are then pulled
separately into with another tag similar to citeref.  That should pull
the MODS data, formatted in full reference format as desired, because
it is called from within the annotation data.

workflow something like this:

Write annotations, store in an annote DB format that includes a field
like <annotationOn linkend="MODSkey"> ref call.  Create a container
document (eg in Docbook) using something like a <annoteref="annoteKey">
tag (or a <biblioref type="annotation" linkend="annotationKey">).

Then transform that using xslt so that it now has something like:

---------
<biblioref type="full-ref" linkend="MODSkey">

Annotation text and <em>tags</em>.
-----------

Then run that through the same citeproc processors as normal except
that rather than inserting the key (eg Howison, 2005) it inserts the
full reference as it would have been formatted in the reference list.  
Optionally a regular reference list could go at the end of the document
(usually done if the annotations, or discussions, are long or if there
are citations in the annotation to sources not part of the annotated
bibliography)

Nice thing about this is that it makes it easy to use references to
other articles within annotations and have them formatted properly
(just use the biblioref syntax as usual which gets replaced by the key
and goes into the ending reference list.

This requires a little more infrastructure but is, I think, quite
flexible.

Could we also, then, have <biblioref type="title-only"
linkend="MODSkey"> and so on?

--James
+1 315 395 4056
Details: <http://freelancepropaganda.com/jameshowison.vcf>



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: annotations

Bruce D'Arcus
On Apr 8, 2005, at 5:14 PM, James Howison wrote:

> Off the top of my head, I'm thinking more in terms of a separate
> database of annotations, many per cite, which are then pulled
> separately into with another tag similar to citeref.  That should pull
> the MODS data, formatted in full reference format as desired, because
> it is called from within the annotation data.

Yup; you've got the right idea.

BTW, latest demo of the eXist MODS example:

http://demo.exist-db.org/exist/mods/biblio.xq

I'd like to be able to insert the annotation contents into the
"detailed" view that gets disclosed.

Bruce



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: annotations

James Howison
So are things like <biblioref type="annote"> or <biblioref="full-text">
allowed?  You can see my (almost) complete ignorance of xml here.

Can parameters not defined in a schema or similar be passed to the xlst
engine in such a way, or would we have to define a limited number of
such things?  If so that isn't a problem, right?  And probably better
to standardize ...

On Apr 8, 2005, at 5:50 PM, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:

>
> On Apr 8, 2005, at 5:14 PM, James Howison wrote:
>
>> Off the top of my head, I'm thinking more in terms of a separate
>> database of annotations, many per cite, which are then pulled
>> separately into with another tag similar to citeref.  That should
>> pull the MODS data, formatted in full reference format as desired,
>> because it is called from within the annotation data.
>
> Yup; you've got the right idea.
>
> BTW, latest demo of the eXist MODS example:
>
> http://demo.exist-db.org/exist/mods/biblio.xq
>
> I'd like to be able to insert the annotation contents into the
> "detailed" view that gets disclosed.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
> Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real
> users.
> Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> xbiblio-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
>
>
--James
+1 315 395 4056
Details: <http://freelancepropaganda.com/jameshowison.vcf>



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: annotations

Bruce D'Arcus
On Apr 8, 2005, at 8:38 PM, James Howison wrote:

> Can parameters not defined in a schema or similar be passed to the
> xlst engine in such a way, or would we have to define a limited number
> of such things?  If so that isn't a problem, right?  And probably
> better to standardize ...

Why not just the following XSLT parameter?

        citation-style=annotated-bibliography

In other words, no need to define local formatting; do it with a CSL
file.

However, you can do local formatting parameters in DocBook:

<biblioref xrefstyle="annotation" linkend="doe99"/>

<biblioref xrefstyle="year" linkend="doe99"/>

Bruce