[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: citations: org-cite vs org-ref 3.0

From: Max Nikulin
Subject: Re: citations: org-cite vs org-ref 3.0
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2022 00:17:40 +0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.0

On 23/03/2022 21:39, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:

Finding and analyzing existing papers again raises the question of
which ones; citation practices look VERY different in chemistry than
in art history or sociology. It also raises the question of who will
do this work, and whether it's the most efficient use of their time.
And finally, your suggestion seems to assume we didn't put a lot of
research and thought into the existing mappings.

I think that a working solution (Eric just have confirmed it) is a great result. I am aware that even in different areas of physics citation traditions vary. I am not trying to dispute that you invest a lot of efforts. I just consider as normal when some polishing is required after the initial release. Really exhaustive research is usually prohibitively expensive. I had a hope that it was clear from the beginning that I considered a missed style as a minor issue.

My point was that it should not be unconsciously ignored. Since the message was long enough, this particular complain may remain unnoticed. I can not say that I fully agree with your decision, but I respect it. I had no intention to upset you and I beg your pardon if it happened.

Have you actually looked at the table of existing mappings? See table
1 here (which it seems we might want to add to the manual?):


I have seen this post and I have even checked the org-cite code that the example from John's message is not covered by the existing mapping.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]