Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal

[John Kitchin]

Nicolas Goaziou writes:

> John Kitchin <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> I still remain somewhat on the positive side of 0. While the focus of
>> these conversations has been on syntax (a necessary step to move
>> forward), there has been little focus on function.
>
> One step at a time. It's already difficult to agree on a syntax.
True enough.

>
>> Citations in org are /far/ more than just references in the text for
>> me. They are functional links, gateways to a lot of information
>> connected to the citation. My org-files are much more useful than the
>> PDF manuscripts that get exported. It is hard to explain what that
>> means exactly, so if you have the time check these videos out. The
>> last one shows the most integrated capabilities we use.
>>
>> org-ref show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyvpSVl4_dg
>> org-ref in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zya8SfmCtFA
>> org-ref + helm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cEb6F9AEu0
>
> Very interesting. I wish we can provide some of these features out of
> the box in a future release.

Thanks! I would be happy to help where I can.

>
> I'm really puzzled here. The very point of this new syntax is to provide
> at least as much information as links, while being more readable in most
> cases.
>
> For example, I suggested
>
>   [cite:subtype: whatever]
>
> which is, in my book, equivalent to
>
>   [[subtype:whatever]]
>
> I think other suggestions are as capable.
>
> Again, the problem is not what you could do with the new syntax, but
> what information it brings. AFAIU, you only need a "type" property,
> which is pretty easy to provide.
>
> So, why do you think it would not be equivalent, feature-wise to links?

They are probably minor, but for example I am not sure how easy it would
be to sort a multicite with all of the syntax options. I guess it can be
done, I just do not see it clearly. It may not be necessary to do this
either.

When on a citation, I know how to append a new citation to it, or to
replace the citation at point, and I know what kind of trickery was used
to enable that. I don't know how simple it would be to do that with full
support of the new syntax. But again, maybe it is not necessary. It may
suffice to handle the simple cases.

An example of something easier might be if each @key is natively
clickable. I could do away with the code that has to figure out which
key you clicked on in a multicite.

These are only based on my experience building org-ref, the evolution
of ideas that came with it, and methods used to achieve it. I would not
let this get in the way of this syntax, but it is the baggage I have
thinking about it ;) These are the kinds of things I do almost every day
in our scientific writing. They are all kind of small, but collectively
they make it easy to do.

so, it is not just about the syntax, but what the syntax makes possible
to do. Real writing is messy, and not just about inserting citations. We
have to edit these when students do a bad job, or when we were sloppy or
incomplete. As the chief editor (a very different job than author!) I
want a syntax that enables easy editing too.

I am not too worried about it. Two years ago I would not have thought
org-ref was even possible. A year ago I did not think it would have the
features it has today. This community is very clever at solving
problems.


>
>
> Regards,

--
Professor John Kitchin
Doherty Hall A207F
Department of Chemical Engineering
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
412-268-7803
@johnkitchin
http://kitchingroup.cheme.cmu.edu