Re: Bibliography: criterium=all

["Rob Heusdens" <robheus@xs4all.nl>]

Hello,

This is more a 'side-comment', but anytime I see an application that wants
in fact to query data from some dataresource, I ask myself: why is that
not implemented as a real relational database?

BibTex is some weird implementation for a problem that in facts requests a
real relational dababase approach, in which your data does not reside in a
file, but a couple of tables. Like PUBLISHER (the organisation that
publishes the article/book/journal, etc.), PUBLICATION, EDITION,
AUTHOR/CONTRIBUTOR (a person making a contribution to a PUBLICATION, like
author, co-author, editor) etc.

For example: every author that has contributed to a publication (or
edition thereof) has only one record in the AUTHOR table, and for each
contribution to a PUBLICATION/EDITION there is a record in the
CONTRIBUTION table, with the foreign keys to the primary key of
AUTHOR/CONTRIBUTOR and to the PUBLICATION/EDITION table.

A data-model for such must exist in the real-world, somewhere, I guess.
But Tex and other implementors have choosen to implement this in a simple
flat-file system, and which I think is part of the problem, because the
implemenation as flat file has certain limits. Esp. when more demanding
features are requested.

Still thinking that ultimately that would be the best way to implement
BibTex, using a relational database as repository instead of flat files.
And you could implement many other 'nice' featueres, like querying other
works related to the works you want to cite (for instance at the basis of
relevant key/reference words or other).

Would be do-able I guess (LuaTex can access dabatases), only problem is
you have to convert al these .bib files into the database format.

But don't know if anyone has thought about implementing Bibtex as a database.

Greetings,

Rob

> Hans,
>
> Sorting simply by year (or, rather, year then author then title ...)
> could be useful. Take, for example, a pluriannual report having many
> references. One might wish to display a list of publications by year.
> Should this be selected using "sorttype=year"?
>
> Another possible syntax could be
>   sorttype={author,year,title,page}
> and this would be the default for APA.
> Of course, the other common sorting is "sorttype=cite".
>
> Furthermore,
>   sorttype={year,author,title,page}
> would be another variant, and I can even imagine using:
>   sorttype={journal,volume,number,page}
> or
>   sorttype={publisher,year,title}
> and I am sure that users may need something totally unanticipated.
>
> The change from the present is that "sortype=author" implies
> {author,year,title,page}. I suppose that it could default to this order
> if no other order is specified. Just like "sorttype=year" could default
> to something sane like {year,author,title,page} unless a different
> order is explicitly given, etc.
>
> A subtlety is how to handle missing fields, say in a mixture of
> articles and books where articles have journal titles (journal) and
> article titles (title) and books have book titles (title). Should
> missing journal fields (books) come before or after articles or should
> title then be taken into account, as in {journal|title}? Do we need to
> allow such logic?
>
> We can continue to discuss this with Thomas and Luigi but I mention it
> here on the mailing list as Flavien Lambert brought up the question.
>
> Alan
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 11:52:15 +0200
> Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl> wrote:
>
>> On 7/16/2014 11:31 AM, Flavien Lambert wrote:
>> > The sort by author is perfect.
>>
>> fyi, sorting authors is kind of complex as we need to take all name
>> elements into account (initials, firstnames, surnames, vons,
>> juniors); of course there can be multiple authors; add to the extra
>> axes year journal, title and page
>>
>> the torture test is a list with 400K author specifications (taken
>> from a bunch of bib databases) which eventually produces a 5500 page
>> document
>>
>> in practice, certainly when we have smaller databases, load time can
>> be neglected (here it is .4 sec luatex vs .3 sec luajittex); sort
>> preparation and processing of that bunch takes 35 sec for luatex and
>> 19 sec for luajittex but of course for normal cases you won't even
>> noticed it .. bib databases with 400K entries are probably not used
>> often
>>
>> (i have no clue if bibtex can handle these numbers)
>>
>> > Thanks,
>> > F.
>> >
>> > On 16 Jul 2014 17:16, "Hans Hagen" <pragma@wxs.nl
>> > <mailto:pragma@wxs.nl>> wrote:
>> >
>> >     On 7/16/2014 10:10 AM, Flavien Lambert wrote:
>> >
>> >         Great! Thanks a lot!
>> >
>> >         And concerning sorting by date?
>> >
>> >
>> >     sorttype=author
>> >
>> >     sorts by author,year,journal,title,page
>> >
>> >     so what do you mean with 'by year'
>> >
>> >     Hans
>
>
> --
> Alan Braslau
> CEA DSM-IRAMIS-SPEC
> CNRS URA 2464
> Orme des Merisiers
> 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette cedex FRANCE
> tel: +33 1 69 08 73 15
> fax: +33 1 69 08 87 86
> mailto:alan.braslau@cea.fr
> ___________________________________________________________________________________
> If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to
> the Wiki!
>
> maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl /
> http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
> webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
> archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
> wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
> ___________________________________________________________________________________
>


___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________