Re: Bibliography in MKIV, custom rendering

[Rik Kabel <context@rik.users.panix.com>]

On 2017-08-12 11:28, Rik Kabel wrote:
> On 2017-08-12 04:54, Hans Hagen wrote:
>> On 8/11/2017 8:58 PM, Rik Kabel wrote:
>>> On 2017-08-11 10:01, Alan Braslau wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2) Apple Inc. is not a name so you should not be using author:
>>>> organization is more appropriate.
>>>>
>>> I do not think that this should be the case.
>>>
>>> APA and Chicago/Turbanian (and doubtless others) accept association 
>>> names as author names, and provide rules for handling them.
>>
>> and as a consequence i bet this is why journals get typeset partly by 
>> hand (tweak and cheat on these things) ... and why each publisher 
>> then has its own style (with cheats and tricks)
>>
>>> The lack of either an author or an editor is currently flagged in 
>>> ConTeXt as an error for books and perhaps other bibtex entry types 
>>> as well. Or do you mean to apply this recommendation to only the 
>>> electronic type or some other limited subset of types?
>>>
>>> Perhaps it is better to use the association name as an author and 
>>> protect it with a layer of curlies or quotation marks, as {{Apple, 
>>> Inc.}}, "{Apple, Inc.}", or '{Apple, Inc.}', any one of which will do 
>>
>> one can do that of course (an dit will work) but then someone will 
>> come along and say that ...
>>
>> our recomendation is that one spends some time on a proper database 
>> as it pays off
>>
>>> the job and also serve to prevent what would surely be unwanted 
>>> abbreviation for styles that abbreviate what are parsed as given names.
>> we really try to get away from fuzzyness ... in fact, the bib format 
>> or at least the way it's often used is a structural coding nightmare 
>> (and often tex commands are then used to bypass things) .. i think 
>> that it never went through a proper 'design, test, review, revise' cycle
>>
>> reverse engineering what is there + side effects took us quite a 
>> while and esp the author bit is a pain (this parsing) ... there have 
>> been proposals for alternatives in the past decades (take mlbibtex) 
>> but so far we're stuck with historic stuff: making a database in a 
>> format that is not that suitable (no nesting) using practices that 
>> are counter intuitive and demand lots of obscure magic
>>
>> (one day Alan will wrap this up in an article)
>>
>> Hans
>
> Alan has stated elsewhere that his intent is to provide first an 
> APA-compliant subsystem, and to add after that support for other 
> regimes. He has also expressed an understandable reluctance to add 
> non-standard fields to bibtex. But it is clearly impossible to provide 
> an APA-compliant system under such a constraint—for example, for some 
> works APA requires an original publication date and bibtex does not 
> support that. It is similarly difficult to see how one can comply with 
> other requirements of APA, such as square brackets around estimated 
> dates for archival sources (how do you identify an estimated date?), 
> constructing shortened titles that are then alphabetized by the first 
> non-significant word, spelling out author names where two or more 
> authors share the same abbreviated names, and so on. Biblatex attempts 
> to address some of these issues with an explosion of new fields, and 
> still, I think, does not succeed. CSL may do a better job on some of 
> these, but again, I do not think that the type of organic standards 
> set forth by APA and others are fully amenable to any automated 
> parsing. This is why I suggested to Alan (off-line) that we need a 
> mechanism to override the generated citation and 
> bibliography/reference list entries with customized versions (\citeas, 
> or additional fields for \cite).
>
> Clearly bibtex is not compatible with the requirements of current 
> documentation standards. Those who require compliant citation to 
> whatever standard with which they are burdened need a better database, 
> support for conversion from bibtex, and a mechanism to override 
> whatever automated result is produced. Of these, the last is most 
> crucial.
>
> As to the specific issue of association names as author names: Why is 
> widening the definition of the author name field using an 
> already-supported protection mechanism worse than overloading the use 
> of the organization field, which is intended denote an affiliation and 
> is not currently supported in the major entry categories?
>
Sorry, rereading what I wrote, I see that I mistakenly suggested that 
the btx subsystem does not support origdate. It does, but it is a 
non-standard extension of bibtex, which was my point.

-- 
Rik

___________________________________________________________________________________
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://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________