Re: pybliographer example and custom bibtex fields

2007/3/13, Yaroslav Halchenko <[email protected]>:
> Sure, 'blob'-type, or may be 'custom'-typed fields in the records and
> 'blob's outside of the records, as well as "@string" and "@comment"s
> outside of the records which somewhat known semantics how to transform
> those between different schemas. In the simplest case, all @string
> definitions simply have to be expanded before 'conversion' to some
> schema which has no alternative to @string definitions. And @comment is
> probably has analogous definition for all schemas so there should be no
> problem in that. Other outside of record blobs can be optionally
> handled as "@comments" I guess (or it can be a 'conversion' parameter)
>
> Or may be I am mixing up what schema is and it covers only a record (ie
> Article, Proceedings, etc), not the file containing records?

The schema covers several aspects, even though the most important one
is the content of the records. I'd be sad loosing the actual meaning
of @string, which, when used in a systematic manner, can be considered
as an authority source where you put journal titles, author names,...

The 1.2 codebase actually embeds the full bibtex content along with
each parsed records. To aupport that, each entry must be aware of its
origin, so that when you modify a field, you can also optimally modify
the associated BibTeX record. Hence, your records are not just dumb
structures, but active code. This makes it tricky to pass them between
databases, to do conversions,... exactly the opposite of 1.3.

-- =

Fr=E9d=E9ric

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=3Djoin.php&p=3Dsourceforge&CID=3DDE=
VDEV