Quantcast

Proper format for page ranges in citeproc-json

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Proper format for page ranges in citeproc-json

Chris Maloney
I see that CSL defines page range format (http://citationstyles.org/downloads/specification.html#appendix-v-page-range-formats) for determining how page ranges are supposed to display.  I just want to verify that in the citeproc-json format, it is good and proper to always give the full numbers in the page range?  I.e., it should be ` "page": "479-482"`, and not  ` "page": "479-82"`?  

I notice that the json produced by Mendeley has the latter, and I suspect that it is wrong, but I want to make  sure.

Thanks.


Chris Maloney
NIH/NLM/NCBI (Contractor)
Building 45, 5AN.24D-22
301-594-2842



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos.  Get
unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available.
Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proper format for page ranges in citeproc-json

fbennett
Yes, absolutely. Full information should be in the data.

On Saturday, May 3, 2014, Maloney, Christopher (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] <[hidden email]> wrote:
I see that CSL defines page range format (http://citationstyles.org/downloads/specification.html#appendix-v-page-range-formats) for determining how page ranges are supposed to display.  I just want to verify that in the citeproc-json format, it is good and proper to always give the full numbers in the page range?  I.e., it should be ` "page": "479-482"`, and not  ` "page": "479-82"`?

I notice that the json produced by Mendeley has the latter, and I suspect that it is wrong, but I want to make  sure.

Thanks.


Chris Maloney
NIH/NLM/NCBI (Contractor)
Building 45, 5AN.24D-22
301-594-2842



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos.  Get
unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available.
Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;xbiblio-devel@lists.sourceforge.net&#39;)">xbiblio-devel@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos.  Get
unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available.
Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proper format for page ranges in citeproc-json

Sebastian Karcher
In reply to this post by Chris Maloney
As Frank says, the full date range is clearly and always preferred,
but CSL processors should (and citeproc-js can) convert 479-82 to
479-482 when page-range-format="expanded" is set (which isn't the case
for most styles at this time, but could be done relatively easily if
it's important).

On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Maloney, Christopher (NIH/NLM/NCBI)
[C] <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I see that CSL defines page range format (http://citationstyles.org/downloads/specification.html#appendix-v-page-range-formats) for determining how page ranges are supposed to display.  I just want to verify that in the citeproc-json format, it is good and proper to always give the full numbers in the page range?  I.e., it should be ` "page": "479-482"`, and not  ` "page": "479-82"`?
>
> I notice that the json produced by Mendeley has the latter, and I suspect that it is wrong, but I want to make  sure.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> Chris Maloney
> NIH/NLM/NCBI (Contractor)
> Building 45, 5AN.24D-22
> 301-594-2842
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
> Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos.  Get
> unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available.
> Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs
> _______________________________________________
> xbiblio-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel



--
Sebastian Karcher
Ph.D. Candidate
Department of Political Science
Northwestern University

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos.  Get
unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available.
Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proper format for page ranges in citeproc-json

Carles Pina
In reply to this post by Chris Maloney
Hi,

On 2 May 2014 21:50, Maloney, Christopher (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C]
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> I see that CSL defines page range format (http://citationstyles.org/downloads/specification.html#appendix-v-page-range-formats) for determining how page ranges are supposed to display.  I just want to verify that in the citeproc-json format, it is good and proper to always give the full numbers in the page range?  I.e., it should be ` "page": "479-482"`, and not  ` "page": "479-82"`?
>
> I notice that the json produced by Mendeley has the latter, and I suspect that it is wrong, but I want to make  sure.

Yes, this is wrong. My guess is that the original "page" field in the
Document details is 479-82. AFAIR we just pass the page there - we
don't manipulate it at all.

--
Carles Pina | Software Engineer
http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/Carles-Pina/

Mendeley Limited | London, UK | www.mendeley.com
Registered in England and Wales | Company Number 6419015

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to find out:
&#149; 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity
&#149; Requirements for releasing software faster
&#149; Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now
http://p.sf.net/sfu/perforce
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proper format for page ranges in citeproc-json

Chris Maloney
> From: Carles Pina [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Hi,
>
> On 2 May 2014 21:50, Maloney, Christopher (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C]
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I see that CSL defines page range format
> (http://citationstyles.org/downloads/specification.html#appendix-v-page-
> range-formats) for determining how page ranges are supposed to display.  I
> just want to verify that in the citeproc-json format, it is good and proper to
> always give the full numbers in the page range?  I.e., it should be ` "page":
> "479-482"`, and not  ` "page": "479-82"`?
> >
> > I notice that the json produced by Mendeley has the latter, and I suspect
> that it is wrong, but I want to make  sure.
>
> Yes, this is wrong. My guess is that the original "page" field in the Document
> details is 479-82. AFAIR we just pass the page there - we don't manipulate it
> at all.
>

Sebastian Karcher wrote:

> As Frank says, the full date range is clearly and always preferred, but CSL
> processors should (and citeproc-js can) convert 479-82 to
> 479-482 when page-range-format="expanded" is set (which isn't the case for
> most styles at this time, but could be done relatively easily if it's
> important).

Frank Bennett wrote:

> Yes, absolutely. Full information should be in the data.


Yeah, a lot of people would say it's not important: "it's cosmetic".  But, of course, just about everything related to citation styles is cosmetic.  I'd rather see the "hub format", i.e. the citeproc-json, be somewhat strict in this, and unambiguously require the "full information", "479-482".  That would lower the burden on the processors, and would help to guarantee consistent behavior across processors, and when the CSLs don't specify a page-range-format.

Chris Maloney
NIH/NLM/NCBI (Contractor)
Building 45, 5AN.24D-22
301-594-2842

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to find out:
&#149; 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity
&#149; Requirements for releasing software faster
&#149; Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now
http://p.sf.net/sfu/perforce
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proper format for page ranges in citeproc-json

Sebastian Karcher
oh, no, that's a misunderstanding. Of course I consider getting
citations exactly right important. Everything else would be rather
silly in the context of this list.
 What I meant was that we could set page-range-format="expanded" for
all styles that don't have anything else set if that is important to
help reference managers get citations right.
With Zotero this is pretty much a non-issue, I've hardly ever seen the
shortened page ranges imported (i.e. from the Zotero perspective this
isn't imporant/makes no difference either way).

On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Maloney, Christopher (NIH/NLM/NCBI)
[C] <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> From: Carles Pina [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2 May 2014 21:50, Maloney, Christopher (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C]
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > I see that CSL defines page range format
>> (http://citationstyles.org/downloads/specification.html#appendix-v-page-
>> range-formats) for determining how page ranges are supposed to display.  I
>> just want to verify that in the citeproc-json format, it is good and proper to
>> always give the full numbers in the page range?  I.e., it should be ` "page":
>> "479-482"`, and not  ` "page": "479-82"`?
>> >
>> > I notice that the json produced by Mendeley has the latter, and I suspect
>> that it is wrong, but I want to make  sure.
>>
>> Yes, this is wrong. My guess is that the original "page" field in the Document
>> details is 479-82. AFAIR we just pass the page there - we don't manipulate it
>> at all.
>>
>
> Sebastian Karcher wrote:
>
>> As Frank says, the full date range is clearly and always preferred, but CSL
>> processors should (and citeproc-js can) convert 479-82 to
>> 479-482 when page-range-format="expanded" is set (which isn't the case for
>> most styles at this time, but could be done relatively easily if it's
>> important).
>
> Frank Bennett wrote:
>
>> Yes, absolutely. Full information should be in the data.
>
>
> Yeah, a lot of people would say it's not important: "it's cosmetic".  But, of course, just about everything related to citation styles is cosmetic.  I'd rather see the "hub format", i.e. the citeproc-json, be somewhat strict in this, and unambiguously require the "full information", "479-482".  That would lower the burden on the processors, and would help to guarantee consistent behavior across processors, and when the CSLs don't specify a page-range-format.
>
> Chris Maloney
> NIH/NLM/NCBI (Contractor)
> Building 45, 5AN.24D-22
> 301-594-2842
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to find out:
> &#149; 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity
> &#149; Requirements for releasing software faster
> &#149; Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/perforce
> _______________________________________________
> xbiblio-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel



--
Sebastian Karcher
Ph.D. Candidate
Department of Political Science
Northwestern University

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to find out:
&#149; 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity
&#149; Requirements for releasing software faster
&#149; Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now
http://p.sf.net/sfu/perforce
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proper format for page ranges in citeproc-json

Sylvester Keil
FWIW, if anyone wants to quickly clean up a set of page ranges you can
use this simple script to do it:

https://gist.github.com/inukshuk/eb98ececbec23595a2d5

Just pipe in your page-ranges one per line and it will return the
expanded page range.

On Mon, 2014-05-05 at 18:26 -0600, Sebastian Karcher wrote:

> oh, no, that's a misunderstanding. Of course I consider getting
> citations exactly right important. Everything else would be rather
> silly in the context of this list.
>  What I meant was that we could set page-range-format="expanded" for
> all styles that don't have anything else set if that is important to
> help reference managers get citations right.
> With Zotero this is pretty much a non-issue, I've hardly ever seen the
> shortened page ranges imported (i.e. from the Zotero perspective this
> isn't imporant/makes no difference either way).
>
> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Maloney, Christopher (NIH/NLM/NCBI)
> [C] <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> From: Carles Pina [mailto:[hidden email]]
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 2 May 2014 21:50, Maloney, Christopher (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C]
> >> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > I see that CSL defines page range format
> >> (http://citationstyles.org/downloads/specification.html#appendix-v-page-
> >> range-formats) for determining how page ranges are supposed to display.  I
> >> just want to verify that in the citeproc-json format, it is good and proper to
> >> always give the full numbers in the page range?  I.e., it should be ` "page":
> >> "479-482"`, and not  ` "page": "479-82"`?
> >> >
> >> > I notice that the json produced by Mendeley has the latter, and I suspect
> >> that it is wrong, but I want to make  sure.
> >>
> >> Yes, this is wrong. My guess is that the original "page" field in the Document
> >> details is 479-82. AFAIR we just pass the page there - we don't manipulate it
> >> at all.
> >>
> >
> > Sebastian Karcher wrote:
> >
> >> As Frank says, the full date range is clearly and always preferred, but CSL
> >> processors should (and citeproc-js can) convert 479-82 to
> >> 479-482 when page-range-format="expanded" is set (which isn't the case for
> >> most styles at this time, but could be done relatively easily if it's
> >> important).
> >
> > Frank Bennett wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, absolutely. Full information should be in the data.
> >
> >
> > Yeah, a lot of people would say it's not important: "it's cosmetic".  But, of course, just about everything related to citation styles is cosmetic.  I'd rather see the "hub format", i.e. the citeproc-json, be somewhat strict in this, and unambiguously require the "full information", "479-482".  That would lower the burden on the processors, and would help to guarantee consistent behavior across processors, and when the CSLs don't specify a page-range-format.
> >
> > Chris Maloney
> > NIH/NLM/NCBI (Contractor)
> > Building 45, 5AN.24D-22
> > 301-594-2842
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to find out:
> > &#149; 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity
> > &#149; Requirements for releasing software faster
> > &#149; Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/perforce
> > _______________________________________________
> > xbiblio-devel mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
>
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to find out:
&#149; 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity
&#149; Requirements for releasing software faster
&#149; Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now
http://p.sf.net/sfu/perforce
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel

signature.asc (205 bytes) Download Attachment
Loading...