RefDB + Bibtex +URLs + chapter + booktitle + incollection

Hi,

Damien Jade Duff writes:
 > (1)
 > 
 > Is there any way to get a URL field in the bibtex results?
 > 

Retrieving URLs and L1-L4 is a bit tricky because each reference can
contain more than one of each type, that's why there was no obvious
solution for doing it yourself. I've added some code that retrieves
all UR and L1-L4 entries and outputs them as URL lines. That is, the
distinction between the link types currently gets lost, but I don't
know how this could be preserved in bibtex. I'm not even sure whether
"URL" is the correct way to encode an URL in bibtex.

 > (2)
 > 
 > The @INBOOK bibtex citation type requires a CHAPTER rather than a TITLE 
 > field and a TITLE rather than a BOOKTITLE field - the three levels here are:
 > 1. CHAPTER
 > 2. TITLE
 > 3. SERIES
 > 

I think I've fixed that.

 > (3)
 > 
 > The @BOOK bibtex citation type also requires a TITLE rather than a 
 > BOOKTITLE field.
 > 

I think I've fixed that too.

 > (4)
 > 
 > In the @INBOOK citation type, I think an editor is not required but in 
 > an @INCOLLECTION citation type it is important.
 > 
 > This is problematic for me because if I call something a "CHAP" 
 > presently it's coming out as @INBOOK and the bibtex formatter is 
 > ignoring the editor field if one exists.
 > 
 > So I think we need to find ways of distinguishing between citations that 
 > are parts of books that are collections and citations that are parts of 
 > books that aren't. I think a good piece of logic would be to check if 
 > there is a different Part and Publication author (i.e. check if the work 
 > has an editor) - if the citation has an editor then it can be an 
 > @INCOLLECTION otherwise an @INBOOK.
 > 

I'm afraid you've lost me here. Is it correct that in an INBOOK entry
the chapter author is also the editor of the whole book, whereas in an
INCOLLECTION entry the author and the editor are different persons?
This seems to be a distinction that RIS does not make. But then I
wonder why you would use INBOOK anyway. I'd rather think that you put
the whole book into the reference list and add the chapter information
into the in-text citation (RefDB doesn't handle this yet though).

 > 
 > (P.S.)
 > P.S. I'm using the latest prerelease 0.9.7pre5. In order to compile it I 
 > disabled the building of the manuals because it wanted "fop" and I don't 
 > have it. I could never figure all that xml stuff out.
 > 

Actually building the documentation is a lot harder than building
RefDB itself. In theory the prebuilt manuals should make it
unnecessary to build anything in the doc subdirectory, but apparently
this does not work on some systems. In any case, your solution is
perfectly appropriate as long as you can live without the
documentation being installed locally by "make install".

regards,
Markus

-- 
Markus Hoenicka
[email protected]
(Spam-protected email: replace the quadrupeds with "mhoenicka")
http://www.mhoenicka.de



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast
and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642