[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: Denis Maier
Subject: Re: citations: org-cite vs org-ref 3.0
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 15:50:36 +0200

Am 29.03.2022 um 18:14 schrieb Bruce D'Arcus:
On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 11:23 AM Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> wrote:

You even have managed to convince me that, besides adding missing style
names, some existing ones should be adjusted. noauthor/bare for citeyear
example makes for me much more sense ...

This does need some attention, but there are wrinkles here.

Citeyear is specific to author-date styles, while noauthor is intended
to be more general.

Anyway citation style is rather specific for a particular CSL style. I
tried some styles:
nature.csl science.csl and for all these styles even "author" is
meaningless since they are numeric styles.

Yes. I think it's more relevant in author-date to note styles. I
believe biblatex has a command relevant here, but Denis knows biblatex
better than I.

I'm not sure I understand the question here. What command should be in biblatex? There's \citeauthor if that's what you've meant.

So it is not more general. Switching CSL style means necessity to update
styles in each citations (unless it is possible to specify global or
per-cite mapping).

Not really. Arguably the most important style is "text", which applies
to any output style; author-date, note-based, numeric.

When you start getting into some of the others, the range of styles a
given style may apply to shrinks.

But you might say author-date styles are pretty dependent on such
local citation modification. If those are output to a style that has
no such notions (like a numeric one), then a processor can just ignore

Just to add to this: When Bruce and I have worked on that list of styles we found that portability can only be ensured when using high-level commands (such as biblatex's autocite), but once you start using low-level commands like citeyear etc. you really lose that portability to a certain degree.

It seems modifiers are set of boolean flags (positive "year" or negative
"suppress-author") in citeproc.el, set of values in natbib, and a kind
of hierarchy in org-cite. From my point of view, set of constrains
(flags) is the most general variant in this list.

I think that's right, and is how it's represented in a GUI app like
Zotero. But that's not so convenient in a plain text format.

But it's a good way to explain the differences.

I think it's probably a good idea to add "year" to the latex processors too.

I agree. Negations are more confusing when an author needs just year.

Well, negations have the advantage of being more portable. Say you have this:

Doe argues X and Y [cite/noauthor:@doe].

It's perfectly clear what this should mean in a author-year, author-title or note-based styles, i.e., print the citation without the author element. (That's obviously a simplification since some citations might not have an author element, but let's just go with it for the moment.)

In a numeric style you can just ignore the noauthor modifier and fall back to the default numeric citation.

Now, consider this instead:

Doe argues X and Y [cite/year:@doe].

This might work in author-year styles, but not in author-title, not in note-based styles, and not in numeric styles.

Considering the problem that some citations don't have an author element I even considered using style names like


But that obviously a bit esoteric.


reply via email to

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