take 1 on CSL mods

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

take 1 on CSL mods

Bruce D'Arcus-3
OK, here's the outline of the current draft, where I'm trying to
incorporate Johan's earlier comments with my interest in solving the
grouping issue.  Comments inline:

   <content>
     <names and-as="and"/>
     <dates>
<!-- for now, keep the existing approach -->
       <months>
         <month></month>
       </months>
     </dates>
     <locators>
<!-- make all of these more compact and consistent; still could remove
all the wrappers here (locators, terms, etc.), but am not sure about
that -->
       <locator type="page" renderas-single="p" renderas-multiple="pp"/>
     </locators>
     <terms>
       <genres>
         <genre type="letter" renderas="letter"/>
       </genres>
       <media>
         <medium type="CD" renderas="CD"/>
       </media>
     </terms>
<!-- move the prefix and suffix elements to attributes per previous
discussion; it has limitations, but is more compact; easier to port to
OpenDocument -->
     <citation delimiter=";" prefix="(" suffix=")">
       <multiple-authors />
       <layout>
         <creator></creator>
       </layout>
     </citation>
     <bibliography>
       <groups>
<!-- the new grouping structure; logic is as follows:

we have two options to group by: creator and named group (perhaps year
ought to be another?)

the first is automatic, and the second would typically require manually
assigning a group
in the bib metadata record; in this case, though, one can add reftype
elements to
automatically assign the groups

if there is no "by" attribute, this essentially becomes the default
group

I need feedback on this.  What do people think?
-->
         <group by="named group" group-name="legal">
           <heading type="text">Legal Documents</heading>
           <reftype name="legal case"/>
           <reftype name="bill"/>
         </group>
         <group>
           <heading type="text">References</heading>
         </group>
       </groups>
       <layout>
         <reftype name="book">
<!-- add ability to modify title casing -->
           <title capitalize="title case"/>
         </reftype>
       </layout>
     </bibliography>
   </content>



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: take 1 on CSL mods

Johan Kool-2
Better late than never, they say, so here are my suggestions:

1- leaving the grouping in places seems like a good idea to me, but I  
am not so sure if it's necessary to wrap <genres> and <media> in a  
group of their own <terms>.
2- Are you going to let the user specify the group for each citation?  
So citation gets a group attribute? How do you handle citations that  
appear twice, but get assigned (by mistake) to different groups?  
(list them in both groups I would suggest)

Otherwise, it seems okay to me.

Regards,

Johan


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: take 1 on CSL mods

Bruce D'Arcus-3
On 11/26/05, Johan Kool <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Better late than never, they say, so here are my suggestions:

Yes, thanks!

> 1- leaving the grouping in places seems like a good idea to me, but I
> am not so sure if it's necessary to wrap <genres> and <media> in a
> group of their own <terms>.

I have no strong opinion on this.  As I metioned before, there may be
some technical reasons why not to do this.  Existing structure is:

terms
   media
      medium
   genres
      genre

In the schema, I can leave the order of those groups insignificant.
If I remove the wrappers, then I would have to enforce order; like:

medium
medium
genre
genre
etc.

As I said, I have no strong opinion, and the decision should be based
on how easy each it is for implementers.

OTOH, I want to trty to get the logic of CSL into OpenDocument, and
there there will be a premium on compactness.

> 2- Are you going to let the user specify the group for each citation?
> So citation gets a group attribute? How do you handle citations that
> appear twice, but get assigned (by mistake) to different groups?
> (list them in both groups I would suggest)

No, where the groups aren't automatic, they'd be specified in the
metadata with some sort of flag.

Bruce


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: take 1 on CSL mods

Bruce D'Arcus-3
In reply to this post by Johan Kool-2
On 11/26/05, Johan Kool <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Better late than never, they say, so here are my suggestions:
>
> 1- leaving the grouping in places seems like a good idea to me, but I
> am not so sure if it's necessary to wrap <genres> and <media> in a
> group of their own <terms>.
> 2- Are you going to let the user specify the group for each citation?
> So citation gets a group attribute? How do you handle citations that
> appear twice, but get assigned (by mistake) to different groups?
> (list them in both groups I would suggest)

Followup: can you imagine doing a GUi for this grouping config, where
one may have two levels of grouping?  The example someone gave me was:

Primary Sources
       Published
       Unpublished
Secondary Sources

Bruce


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [dev-biblio] take 1 on CSL mods

Bruce D'Arcus-3
In reply to this post by Bruce D'Arcus-3
On 11/26/05, Bruce D'Arcus <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Nov 26, 2005, at 4:04 PM, David Wilson wrote:
>
> > my style guide tells me that 2 levels are sometimes appropriate because
> > they give this example -
> >
> > Primary Sources
> >       Published
> >       Unpublished
> > Secondary Sources
>
> Let me think about more then.

OK, here's a possiblity, where i only allow two-levels:

     <bibliography author-as-sort-order="first-author"
author-shorten-with="———.">
      <use-et_al min-authors="4" use-first="3"/>
      <organization>
        <heading>References</heading>
        <section group-by="named group" group-name="primary">
          <heading type="text">Primary Sources</heading>
          <subsection>
            <heading type="text">Published Sources</heading>
          </subsection>
          <subsection group-by="named group" group-name="unpublished">
            <heading type="text">Unpublished Sources</heading>
          </subsection>
        </section>
        <section>
          <heading type="text">Secondary Sources</heading>
        </section>
      </organization>
      <layout>
        <reftype name="book">
          ...
          <title capitalize="title case"/>
          ...
        </reftype>
        ...
      </layout>
    </bibliography>

I still need to think on this more and see if I can make this more
automated; e.g. whether I should standardize the published/unpublished
groups as a grouping category, and therefore have the software
automatically handle that.

Bruce
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: take 1 on CSL mods

Johan Kool-2
In reply to this post by Bruce D'Arcus-3

Op 26-nov-2005, om 21:58 heeft Bruce D'Arcus het volgende geschreven:
>
> Followup: can you imagine doing a GUi for this grouping config, where
> one may have two levels of grouping?

Yes. An extra tab labelled "Groups" in this part:



containing a NSOutlineView.

pastedGraphic.png (75K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: take 1 on CSL mods

Bruce D'Arcus-3
On 11/27/05, Johan Kool <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Op 26-nov-2005, om 21:58 heeft Bruce D'Arcus het volgende geschreven:
> >
> > Followup: can you imagine doing a GUi for this grouping config, where
> > one may have two levels of grouping?
>
> Yes. An extra tab labelled "Groups" in this part:

Ok, so long as you can imagine it, that's great.

As you can see, I had some refinements today, and am also more
comfortable with it.  That suggests calling the "groups" tag
"organization", unless someone has a better name.

BTW, as I've designed it, that structure would also be used to
specifiy the reference list heading even if there were no sections.
That's among the reason I got rid of the "group" language.

You had requested this feature earlier also, so let me know what you think.

Bruce


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: take 1 on CSL mods

Johan Kool-2
In reply to this post by Bruce D'Arcus-3
>> 1- leaving the grouping in places seems like a good idea to me, but I
>> am not so sure if it's necessary to wrap <genres> and <media> in a
>> group of their own <terms>.
>
> I have no strong opinion on this.  As I metioned before, there may be
> some technical reasons why not to do this.  Existing structure is:
>
> terms
>    media
>       medium
>    genres
>       genre
>
> In the schema, I can leave the order of those groups insignificant.
> If I remove the wrappers, then I would have to enforce order; like:
>
> medium
> medium
> genre
> genre
> etc.

I was actually more thinking:

media
     medium
genres
     genre

Grouping per term is nice, but no need to group the terms in its own  
tag, right?

Bye,

Johan


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: take 1 on CSL mods

Bruce D'Arcus-3
On Nov 28, 2005, at 7:18 PM, Johan Kool wrote:

> Grouping per term is nice, but no need to group the terms in its own
> tag, right?

Right.

Bruce