diff options
author | Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> | 2019-09-02 13:46:59 +0900 |
---|---|---|
committer | Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> | 2019-09-02 13:46:59 +0900 |
commit | e0c6872cf40896c7be36b11dcc744620f10adf1d (patch) | |
tree | 60335e10d2f4354b0674ec22d7b53f0f8abee672 /info/ltx3pub/l3d005.tex |
Initial commit
Diffstat (limited to 'info/ltx3pub/l3d005.tex')
-rw-r--r-- | info/ltx3pub/l3d005.tex | 1065 |
1 files changed, 1065 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/info/ltx3pub/l3d005.tex b/info/ltx3pub/l3d005.tex new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..01ca6c03a5 --- /dev/null +++ b/info/ltx3pub/l3d005.tex @@ -0,0 +1,1065 @@ +%%% ==================================================================== +%%% @LaTeX3-article{ LaTeX3-L3-005, +%%% filename = "l3d005.tex", +%%% archived = "ctan:/tex-archive/info/ltx3pub/", +%%% author = "David Rhead", +%%% doc-group = "Project core team", +%%% title = "The ``operational requirement'' (?) for +%%% support of bibliographic references by +%%% \LaTeX\ 3", +%%% version = "1.00", +%%% date = "09 August 1993", +%%% time = "10:48:08 MET", +%%% status = "public, official", +%%% abstract = " +%%% It is suggested that: +%%% \begin{itemize} +%%% \item \LaTeX\ 3 should aim to support the +%%% principal citation schemes used +%%% in conventional publishing +%%% \item consideration be given to a +%%% {\it modus vivendi} between \LaTeX\ 3 +%%% and mainstream bibliography-formatting +%%% software. +%%% \end{itemize} +%%% ", +%%% keywords = "", +%%% project-address = "LaTeX3 Project \\ +%%% c/o Dr. Chris Rowley \\ +%%% The Open University \\ +%%% Parsifal College \\ +%%% Finchley Road \\ +%%% London NW3 7BG, England, UK", +%%% project-tel = "+44 171 794 0575", +%%% project-FAX = "+44 171 433 6196", +%%% project-email = "LTX3-Mgr@SHSU.edu", +%%% copyright = "Copyright (C) 1993 LaTeX3 Project +%%% and David Rhead. +%%% All rights reserved. +%%% +%%% No permissions to copy or distribute this +%%% publication in any form are granted and in +%%% particular no permission to copy or distribute +%%% parts of it.", +%%% generalinfo = "To subscribe to the LaTeX3 discussion list: +%%% +%%% Send mail to listserv@vm.urz.uni-heidelberg.de +%%% with the following line as the body of the +%%% message (substituting your own name): +%%% +%%% subscribe LaTeX-L First-name Surname +%%% +%%% To find out about volunteer work: +%%% +%%% look at the document vol-task.tex which can +%%% be obtained electronically, see below. +%%% +%%% To retrieve project publications electronically: +%%% +%%% Project publications are available for +%%% retrieval by anonymous ftp from ctan hosts: +%%% ftp.tex.ac.uk +%%% ftp.dante.de +%%% ftp.shsu.edu +%%% in the directory /tex-archive/info/ltx3pub. +%%% +%%% The file ltx3pub.bib in that directory gives +%%% full bibliographical information including +%%% abstracts in BibTeX format. A brief history +%%% of the project and a description of its aims +%%% is contained in l3d001.tex. +%%% +%%% If you only have access to email, and not ftp +%%% You may use the ftpmail service. +%%% Send a message just containg the word +%%% help +%%% to ftpmail@ftp.shsu.edu +%%% for more information about this service. +%%% +%%% For offers of financial contributions or +%%% contributions of computing equipment or +%%% software, contact the project at the above +%%% address, or the TeX Users Group. +%%% +%%% For offers of technical assistance, contact the +%%% project at the above address. +%%% +%%% For technical enquiries and suggestions, send +%%% e-mail to the latex-l list or contact the +%%% project at the above address.", +%%% checksum = "15455 1065 6201 46964", +%%% docstring = "The checksum field above contains a CRC-16 +%%% checksum as the first value, followed by the +%%% equivalent of the standard UNIX wc (word +%%% count) utility output of lines, words, and +%%% characters. This is produced by Robert +%%% Solovay's checksum utility.", +%%% } +%%% ==================================================================== +% LaTeX 2.09 document + +\documentstyle{l3ms001} + + +\newcommand{\BibTeX}{{\rm B\kern-.05em{\sc i\kern-.025em b}\kern-.08em + T\kern-.1667em\lower.7ex\hbox{E}\kern-.125emX}} + + +\newcommand{\bs}{\char '134} + +\begin{document} + +\title{The ``operational requirement'' (?) for +support of bibliographic references by \LaTeX\ 3} +\author{David Rhead} +\date{August 1993} + +% Cripps Computing Centre +% University of Nottingham +% JANET: d.rhead@uk.ac.nott.vme + +\maketitle + +\begin{abstract} +It is suggested that: +\begin{itemize} +\item \LaTeX\ 3 should aim to support the principal citation schemes used + in conventional publishing +\item consideration be given to a {\it modus vivendi} between \LaTeX\ 3 and + mainstream bibliography-formatting software. +\end{itemize} +\end{abstract} + +\tableofcontents + +\section{Introduction} + +Ideally, when writing software, it is a good idea to write down what the +software is intended to achieve --- the ``operational requirement'' --- +before writing any code. + +This article attempts to take an ``operational requirement'' approach to +the ``bibliographic reference'' aspects of \LaTeX\ 3.% +\footnote{Obviously, there are limits to the what the OR approach can +achieve. For example, it is difficult to quantify ``usability''. +Nevertheless, the approach should facilitate debate about objectives {\em +before} the ``user interface'' has been fixed.} +The objective is to stimulate debate --- if you don't agree with my +suggestions, please suggest specific alternatives! (In the remainder of +the article, ``operational requirement'' is abbreviated to ``OR''.) + +Generalizing the approach taken by the \LaTeX\ 2.09 manual \cite[pp.\ +73--74]{lamport-86}, it is convenient to divide the topic into ``doing it +yourself'' and ``using bibliography-formatting software''. + +\section{Doing it yourself} +\label{DIY} + +In effect, the only scheme that is ``fully supported'' by \LaTeX\ 2.09 is +``reference by number, where the sequence of numbers is determined by +position in the reference-list''. + +By contrast, for ``real-world publishing'', my impression is that: +\begin{enumerate} +\item + only a minority of ``instructions to authors'' specify anything like + the default \LaTeX\ 2.09 scheme. This minority consists of those + journals that specify ``reference by number, with the reference-list + in alphabetical order of author's names''. +\item the majority of ``instructions to authors'', style-books, etc., + specify one of the following: + \begin{enumerate} + \item + reference by number, with the reference-list in order of first + citation + \item + author-date + \item + ``short-form in footnotes''. For publications in the humanities, + there seem to be two main variants of this scheme, depending on + whether or not there is a reference-list.% +\footnote{If there is no reference-list, the convention is usually ``first +citation gives full bibliographic details, subsequent citations give +cross-reference to first citation''. This variant is common in law +publications, when it is used in conjunction with numerous law-specific +citation conventions \cite{harvard-law}.} + \end{enumerate} + ISO 690 \cite[sec.\ 9]{iso-690} provides a convenient specification of + the details of these schemes. The default \LaTeX\ 2.09 system gives + no particular help to anyone wanting to use them.% +\footnote{% +\BibTeX\ can help with (a). +Anyone wishing to use (b) will probably grope around in archives +looking for style-options that: arrange for {\tt \bs cite} to give (\dots) +rather than [\dots]; omit [\dots] from the reference-list; support +date-only citations when the author's name appears naturally in a +sentence. +Apart from the law-specific Lexi\TeX\ \cite{bennett-93}, I'm not aware of +any 2.09-related software that helps people who wish to use scheme (c).} + \item a few publishers specify alternative schemes. + E.g., + \begin{itemize} + \item some Springer journals% +\footnote{See the ``instructions for authors'' in, for example, {\it +Mathematische Zeitschrift.}} + accept citations of the form ``first letter of author's surname, + in square brackets'' + \item + Butcher \cite{butcher-92} mentions a variation of the + reference-by-number system in which there is a separate numerical + sequence for each letter, and a variation of the author-date + system in which a number is used instead of a date + \item a scheme like the \BibTeX\ {\tt alpha} style is sometimes + used (for example, in the journal {\it Formal Aspects of + Computing}). + \end{itemize} +\end{enumerate} + +Therefore, I suggest that the OR for \LaTeX\ 3: +\begin{itemize} +\item + should include support% +\footnote{I assume that ``sorting a reference-list'' will be beyond the +scope of \LaTeX\ 3. Thus, in practice, the \LaTeX\ 3 ``support'' might be +minimal (a ``better than nothing'' warning that a reference-list needs +human intervention, perhaps). People who want anything better would +be advised to use bibliography-formatting software.} + for the schemes mentioned in items 1 and 2 above, i.e., + \begin{itemize} + \item + a 2.09-like scheme aimed at journals that specify ``reference by + number, with the reference-list in alphabetical order of author's + names'' + \item + the schemes specified in ISO 690, namely: ``reference-by-number + in order of first citation'', author-date, and 2 variations of + ``short-form in footnotes''.% +\footnote{To support these schemes, it is probably desirable that \LaTeX\ 3 +should be able to determine whether a citation of a source is ``the first +citation'' of that source. Clearly this would help to provide support for +``reference by number in order of first citation''. In the author-date +case, it would allow support for the convention \cite[sec.\ 3.87]{apa-83} +that, when there are multiple authors, they should all be named in the +first citation but ``{\it et al.\/}'' should be used subsequently. It +might also help to provide support for the variant of the short-form scheme +in which a ``subsequent citation'' uses the short-form and gives a +cross-reference to the footnote containing the ``first citation'' (where +full details of the source can be found).} + \end{itemize} +\item + should bear in mind the possibility of a ``plug-in module'' to support + law conventions. Since such conventions are only crucial to lawyers, + it would probably be inappropriate to delay \LaTeX\ 3 while + law-specific commands were finalised, or to increase the bulk of the + \LaTeX\ 3 manual by including law-specific material. Nevertheless, it + might be worth simultaneous experiments with a prototype \LaTeX\ 3 + and a prototype law-support module, in the hope that the law-specific + commands in such a module might end up with a similar ``look and + feel'' to those for the mainstream ``short-form in footnotes'' + commands. +\item + need not include support for the alternative schemes mentioned in + item~3 above (although the possibility of ``plug-in modules'' to + support these schemes might be borne in mind). +\end{itemize} + +In addition, the following features are desirable: +\begin{itemize} +\item + for situations where several bibliographic sources are cited + simultaneously: + \begin{itemize} + \item + a syntax that permits a particular division of each source to be + pin-pointed \cite[sec.\ 15.25]{chicago-82}. (The \LaTeX\ 2.09 + \verb+\cite[...]{...}+ syntax only supports pin-pointing within a + single source.) + \item + a mechanism for sorting reference-by-number citations into + ascending numerical order \cite[p.~106]{acs-86}.% +\footnote{Alternatively, if it is not feasible to sort reference-by-number +and author-date citations into a desired order, mechanisms for giving +warnings if simultaneous citations are in the wrong order would be ``better +than nothing''.} + \item + a mechanism for sorting author-date citations% +\addtocounter{footnote}{-1}\footnotemark + into alphabetical + order of author's surnames (or, ideally, the order in which the + sources appear in the reference-list) \cite[sec.\ 3.91]{apa-83} + or into ``date of publication'' order \cite[sec.\ + 15.24]{chicago-82}. +\end{itemize} + +\item + support for types of bibliography that, although not as common + as a single undivided list, are appropriate in + particular circumstances, namely: + \begin{itemize} + \item a list divided into sections according to kinds of material, + subject matter or other appropriate categories + \item an annotated bibliography + \item a bibliographical essay. + \end{itemize} + See, for example, the {\it Chicago Manual of Style} \cite[chap.\ + 15]{chicago-82}. + + End-users could get confused if they try using \LaTeX\ 2.09's {\tt + thebibliography} environment for such bibliographies. +\end{itemize} +The above might provide the major elements of an OR\@. Minor elements may +be more difficult to specify, but can perhaps be summarized as +\begin{quote} + \LaTeX\ 3 should be able to survive $\beta$-testing of whether + it can conveniently deliver bibliographic details formatted as + specified by influential style-books and ``instructions for authors''. +\end{quote} +See +\cite{harvard-law,iso-690,butcher-92,apa-83,chicago-82,mhra-91,mla-88,% +vancouver-91,bs-5605,bs-1629,bs-6371}. + + +\section{Using bibliography-formatting software} + +\subsection[Background]{Background\footnotemark} +\footnotetext{Warning: I do not currently have ``hands on'' experience of +using \LaTeX\ in conjunction with software other than \BibTeX\ (although I +have browsed through as many of the relevant manuals as I could find). +Hence, the ideas given in this section, and in section \ref{misc}, +are theoretical and speculative.} +\label{background} + +\subsubsection{Software available} + +The bibliography-formatting software that is ``advertised'' in the \LaTeX\ +2.09 manual is \BibTeX\ \cite{lamport-86,patashnik-88}. Tib +\cite{alexander-89} is also sometimes mentioned in \TeX\ circles. + +In fact, there are a large number of bibliography-formatting programs +available. A recent review article \cite{stigleman-93} names 52 such +programs. + +Judging by comments on the {\tt bibsoft} list, the most important +bibliographic programs (from the point-of-view of professional librarians +and bibliographers) seem to be EndNote, Library Master, Papyrus, ProCite +and Reference Manager. (Appendices \ref{suppliers} and +\ref{discussion-lists} give details of the {\tt bibsoft} list and of the +relevant vendors.) + +Of these, EndNote, Papyrus, ProCite and Reference Manager have procedures +for processing a ``manuscript'', filling in the in-text citations and +generating the corresponding reference-list. Although I understand that a +similar facility is planned for the next version of Library Master, I don't +know what form this will take. Therefore, when referring to these +programs, I will use: +\begin{description} +\item[``main 4''] to mean the programs (EndNote, Papyrus, ProCite and Reference + Manager) whose procedures for filling in the in-text citations are + currently known +\item[``main 5''] to mean the ``main 4'' plus Library Master. +\end{description} + +>From a \LaTeX-er's point-of-view, the public-domain \BibTeX\ and Tib are +obviously attractive, since they were {\em designed} to work with +\TeX/\LaTeX, and are available for most of the platforms on which +\TeX/\LaTeX\ are available. By contrast, the ``main 5'' are: +\begin{itemize} +\item proprietary +\item currently aimed at ``wordprocessor'' users.% +\footnote{Certain vendors state that \TeX\ is one of their program's +``supported wordprocessors''. You may or may not regard this as a hopeful +sign!} +\item only available on a restricted selection of platforms. (All are + available for MS-DOS. Some are available for Macintosh or VAX/VMS.) +\end{itemize} + +Nevertheless, there are many things about the ``main 5'' that are of +interest: +\begin{itemize} +\item + The programs have standard procedures for importing information from + standard database programs, online information services, CD-ROMs and + library catalogues. +\item + They generally have good facilities for maintenance of a ``personal + bibliographic database'', and for searching such a database for + entries that satisfy particular criteria. +\item + It seems likely that the programs will continue to be developed and + supported into the future. (By contrast, my understanding is that + \BibTeX\ will be ``frozen'' when version 1.0 has been finished.) +\item + There is a choice. If one program has underlying assumptions that + don't match the assumptions that are usual in your discipline, you can + look for an alternative! +\end{itemize} + +Even if you don't regard the ``main 5'' as of positive interest, you may be +unable to avoid them. If a research-group contains a \LaTeX-ing minority +and a non-\LaTeX-ing majority: +\begin{itemize} +\item + the ``majority'' may choose one of the ``main 5'' as the group's + ``standard bib\-li\-og\-ra\-phy-formatting software'' +\item + the \LaTeX-ers will then be at a serious disadvantage if they cannot + use the group's bibliographic databases. +\end{itemize} +Also, if your librarian is providing bibliographic information in +electronic form (e.g., from a computerized library catalogue), s/he may +offer an off-the-shelf way to get the information into a database for one +of the ``main 5'', but be unable to help you if you use \BibTeX. + +Overall, it seems to me desirable that, as well as having standard +procedures for inter-working with \BibTeX\ and Tib, \LaTeX\ 3 should have +standard procedures for inter-working with the ``main 5''. Such procedures +are unlikely to be perfect, but it should be possible to agree on some {\it +modus vivendi}.% +\footnote{It is unlikely that the vendors will re-focus their products to +concentrate on \LaTeX\ users --- and equally unlikely that \LaTeX-ers will +start to think of themselves as ``wordprocessor users''. Nevertheless, +with a few minor changes (which might involve the \LaTeX\ end, the +bibliographic program end and/or the documentation), it should be possible +for \LaTeX\ 3 and the mainstream bibliographic software to work reasonably +well together. + +``{\it Modus vivendi}\/'', i.e., ``an arrangement between peoples who agree +to differ'', seems to fit the situation quite well.} + + +\subsubsection{{\it Modus vivendi} with the main 4?} +\label{modus-vivendi} + +Before considering how \LaTeX\ might co-operate with the ``main 4''% +\footnote{Hopefully, it will be possible to use the same general ideas for +Library Master when its procedure for ``filling in the in-text citations +and generating the reference-list'' becomes known.} +it is convenient to contrast \BibTeX's approach with that of Tib. + +\BibTeX's approach involves searching a \LaTeX\ {\tt .aux} file for details +of in-text citations, and then writing out a {\tt .bbl} file. The {\tt +.bbl} file defines a reference-list that is read in when \LaTeX\ is next +applied to the root file. + +Tib's approach is different. It starts with a {\tt .tex} file that +contains ``incomplete or keyed citations'' within citation-delimiters, and +produces another {\tt .tex} file that contains proper in-text citations +plus (optionally) a reference-list. + +When the procedures used by the ``main 4'' are interpreted in terms of +\LaTeX, they seem to be more akin to Tib's approach than to \BibTeX's. It +looks as though the end-user would start with a {\tt .tex} file containing +keys, etc., within citation-delimiters, and use the bibliography-formatting +program to produce a near-duplicate {\tt .tex} file that contains proper +in-text citations plus a reference-list. + +In fact, Tib's citation-delimiters are chosen so that: +\begin{quote} +The escape characters of Tib do not interfere with \TeX\ processing. If +\TeX\ is applied to the original pre-Tib document, the escape characters +and incomplete citations will appear as written. +\end{quote} +I.e., the pre-Tib {\tt .tex} file and the post-Tib {\tt .tex} file are both +valid \LaTeX\ input files. + +This seems a useful precedent. If \LaTeX\ could inter-work with the ``main +4'' in an analogous way, it would not be necessary to +\begin{quote} +Apply bibliography-formatting software.\\ +Then apply \LaTeX. +\end{quote} +every time that a {\tt .dvi} file is required. For example, if someone is +concentrating on getting their equations typeset correctly, they might want +to get {\tt .dvi} files quickly without always having to go through the +bibliography-formatting step. At the equation-checking stage, they may +just want a {\tt .dvi} file that shows their equations, and not be worried +about the appearance of their in-text citations or reference-list. + +A potential problem for any \LaTeX-er trying to follow the Tib precedent, +is that EndNote and ProCite use \verb+#+ to identify ``number within +database''. Hence the end-user may need to put a \verb+#+ (which is one of +\LaTeX's 10 ``special characters'') within the relevant +citation-delimiters. (See Table \ref{analogues} for details of the +programs' default citation-delimiters, and the alternatives available.) + +\begin{table} + +\begin{center} +\begin{footnotesize} + +\begin{tabular}{lll} +\hline\hline +Software & Citation & Notes \\ + & delimiters & \\ +\hline\hline +\LaTeX\ 2.09 with \BibTeX & {\tt \bs cite\{\ \}} & \\ +\hline +Tib & {\tt [.\ .]} & + The delimiters {\tt <.\ .>} are used \\ + & & in some circumstances \\ +\hline +EndNote & Default: {\tt [\ ]} & + You can tell EndNote to look for alternative \\ + & & 1-character delimiters (e.g., {\tt <\ >}).\\ +\hline +Library Master & Not known & + I understand that a facility for ``given \\ + & & the in-text citations, compile a \\ + & & reference-list'' is in preparation. \\ +\hline +Papyrus & Default: {\tt \%\%\ \%\%} & + You can tell Papyrus to look for alternative \\ + & & delimiters (but ``start delimiter'' must \\ + & & be the same as ``end delimiter'') \\ +\hline +ProCite & Default: {\tt (\ ) } & + You can tell ProCite to look \\ + & & for {\tt [\ ]} rather than for {\tt (\ )}. \\ +\hline +Reference Manager & Default: {\tt \{\ \}} & + You can tell Reference Manager to look \\ + & & for alternative delimiters. ``Start delimiter'' \\ + & & and ``end delimiter'' can each have up \\ + & & to 7 characters. \\ +\hline\hline +\end{tabular} + +\end{footnotesize} +\end{center} + +\caption{Citation-delimiters: defaults and alternatives\label{analogues}} + +\end{table} + + +One way of imitating Tib (in spite of the possibility of \verb+#+ +characters) might be to arrange delimiters such that the proprietary +program's ``start delimiter'' is interpreted by \LaTeX\ as being equivalent +to \LaTeX\ 2.09's \verb!\verb+!, and its ``end delimiter'' is interpreted +as equivalent to the \verb!+! that terminates the text introduced by +\verb!\verb+!. Then: +\begin{itemize} +\item + If \LaTeX\ is applied to the original {\tt .tex} file, the citation + keys will be typeset ``as is'' in a {\tt typewriter} font (to remind + the \LaTeX-er that the bibliographic software needs applying before + the document can be regarded as finished). +\item + If the bibliographic software is applied to the original {\tt .tex} + file, a new {\tt .tex} file will be produced that, when \LaTeX-ed, has + proper in-text citations and a reference-list. +\end{itemize} +Overall, the \LaTeX-er will be able to apply \LaTeX\ and the bibliographic +software in either order (in much the same way that \LaTeX\ and Tib can be +applied in either order). + +This approach could be the major element of a {\it modus vivendi} between +\LaTeX\ 3 and the ``main 4''. Table \ref{choice-of-delimiter} shows some +delimiters that might be suitable. + +\begin{table} +\begin{center} +\begin{footnotesize} + +\begin{tabular}{llll} +\hline\hline +Biblio.\ & Tell bib.\ software & Tell \LaTeX\ 3 & Notes \\ +software \\ +\hline\hline +EndNote & Delimiters are & {\tt<}\dots{\tt>} is equivalent \\ + & {\tt <} and {\tt >} & to 2.09's {\tt \bs verb+}\dots{\tt+} \\ +\hline +Papyrus & Delimiter is {\tt"} & {\tt"}\dots{\tt"} is equivalent \\ + & & to 2.09's {\tt \bs verb+}\dots{\tt+} \\ +\hline +ProCite & & & No obvious alternative to ``always \\ + & & & apply ProCite before \LaTeX'' \\ +\hline +Reference & Delimiters are & + {\tt \bs bsoft\{\dots\}} is equiv.\ to \\ +Manager & {\tt \bs bsoft\{} and {\tt\}} & + 2.09's {\tt \bs verb+}\dots{\tt+} \\ +\hline\hline +\end{tabular} \\[2mm] +\begin{tabular}{lp{100mm}} +{\it Note:} + & Clearly the default Papyrus and Reference Manager delimiters (see + Table \ref{analogues}) must be changed if the end-user is to have the + option of applying \LaTeX\ without having previously dealt with + citations, etc. However, the Papyrus and Reference Manager keys are + not liable to contain a {\tt \#} character. Hence, it is not crucial + whether Papyrus and Reference Manager keys are ``hidden'' from \LaTeX. +\end{tabular} + + +\end{footnotesize} +\end{center} + +\caption{Choice of delimiters for {\it modus vivendi\/}?% +\label{choice-of-delimiter}} +\end{table} + +A {\it modus vivendi} would also need to incorporate an approach to the +``root file and {\tt \bs include}-ed files'' situation. Although I don't +have any specific suggestions at this stage, I speculate that support for +this feature might be obtained by reference to the bibliographic software's +support for analogous features in wordprocessors (e.g., WordPerfect's +``master document and subdocument'' scheme, and Microsoft Word's +``include'' scheme). + +\subsubsection{Preferred interface} + +The suggestions in Table \ref{choice-of-delimiter} are intended as part of +a {\it modus vivendi} between \LaTeX\ 3 and the {\em current} versions of +the ``main 4''. Although the general approach is the same, the details +differ from product to product. + +It would be open to \LaTeX-ers to decide on a preferred interface, and to +inform the vendors of their preference in the hope that it may be possible +to implement the approach more consistently at some time in the future. We +wouldn't lose anything by asking! + +For example, if the preferred interface involved \verb+\bsoft{+{\it +key\/}\verb+}+ (as shown in Table \ref{choice-of-delimiter} for Reference +Manager), it would be open to us to ask the other vendors to relax their +rules on citation-delimiters so that future versions of the ``main 5'' will +all accept \verb+\bsoft{+{\it key\/}\verb+}+. If we were lucky enough to +get the vendors' agreement, this might enable us to produce ``using +proprietary bibliographic software with \LaTeX'' notes that are simpler +from the \LaTeX\ point-of-view than Table \ref{choice-of-delimiter}. + +\paragraph{Note} + +It might be possible to have a {\it modus vivendi} (e.g., with Reference +Manager) involving \verb!\verb+!{\it key\/}\verb!+!, rather than having an +additional command such as \verb+\bsoft+ (which would, in any case, be +implemented in much the same way as \verb!\verb!). The bibliographic +software will probably ignore things within \verb!\verb+! and \verb!+! +that don't look like citation keys. Nevertheless, I would be inclined to +introduce an extra command (e.g., \verb+\bsoft+) so that {\tt .tex} files +can be ``marked up logically'' to distinguish between: + \begin{itemize} +\item delimiters for a key that is intended for processing by + bibliographic software +\item delimiters for text that is intended to appear in a {\tt typewriter} + font in the final document. +\end{itemize} + +\subsubsection{Hybrid approaches} + +One can envisage schemes that embed a proprietary bibliographic system's +mechanism for dealing with citations and reference-lists within \LaTeX's +mechanism or {\it vice versa\/}). Examples might include: +\begin{itemize} +\item + telling Papyrus to use \verb+!!+ as its delimiter, and putting the + Papyrus citation markers inside a \LaTeX\ \verb+\cite+ command, thus + \verb+\cite{!!+\dots\verb+!!}+.% +\footnote{Bernard J. Treves Brown, of Manchester University, is +experimenting with this technique.} + +\item + trying to get proprietary bibliographic software to read an {\tt .aux} + file, and write a {\tt .bbl} file, as \BibTeX\ does. (Perhaps this + could be done by a shell script which invokes the proprietary software + in a suitable way.) + +\end{itemize} + +Generally, I fear that such hybrid schemes may lead to confusion, and I +would not be inclined to persue them: +\begin{itemize} + +\item + Anyone constructing a hybrid scheme will have to be very careful about + ``which software is in charge when'' (e.g., whether citation numbers + are incremented by \LaTeX, by the proprietary system, or by ``one + shadowing the other''). The hybrid scheme will need maintenance + (e.g., someone will need to verify that the scheme still works with + each new release of the proprietary system). There may be three lots + of documentation for the end-user to study: that about \LaTeX\ 3, that + about the proprietary system, and that about the hybrid scheme's + subtle combination of elements of both. If anything goes wrong, it + may be in ``a grey area'', which is neither the responsibility of the + \LaTeX\ 3 project, nor the responsibility of the bibliographic + software vendor. + +\item + The proprietary systems seem more akin to Tib than to \BibTeX. To try + and force them into the \BibTeX\ sterotype when they are not designed + to work like \BibTeX\ seems like ``asking for trouble''. I doubt + whether the \TeX\ community has the resources to produce interfaces + that ``make proprietary systems work like \BibTeX'', and I doubt + whether the vendors have the inclination to commit such resources. + +\end{itemize} + +My instinct is that it would be better to have a simple interface (e.g., +conventions such as those outlined in Table \ref{choice-of-delimiter}), so +as to put the end-user in a situation where responsibilities are clear: +\begin{itemize} +\item + Typesetting is the responsibility of \LaTeX\ 3. +\item + Bibliography-generation is the responsibility of the bibliographic + software. +\end{itemize} + +Hence, if using a proprietary bibliographic system, the end-user should +ignore the \LaTeX\ 3 manual's descriptions of commands to support the +DIY-er (i.e, ignore the \LaTeX\ commands envisaged in section \ref{DIY}), +and ignore anything that is provided to support the \BibTeX-er. +\begin{itemize} + +\item + The proprietary system will be ``in charge'' of bibliography + generation. The method used will be that envisaged by the vendor, and + documented in the vendor's manual: if it's good, the vendor will get + the credit; if it's bad, the vendor will get the blame. + +\item + The delimiters in the {\tt .tex} file will be delimiters for the + proprietary system (chosen, if possible, in such a way that the {\tt + .tex} file as acceptable to \LaTeX\ even before processing by the + proprietary system.) They might be as shown in Table + \ref{choice-of-delimiter}. The ``keys'', etc., inside the delimiters + will follow the rules given in the vendor's manual ({\em not} the + rules given in the \LaTeX\ 3 manual about keys that the DIY-er can + use.) + +\item + The proprietary system will be ``told to produce \TeX\ output''. How + good or bad they are at this will be the responsibility of the + proprietary system (although interested \LaTeX-ers might advise the + vendors about what is required). +\end{itemize} +Overall, the end-user will get in-text citations filled in, and reference +lists generated, in the standard way that is described in the manual that +describes the proprietary system. If this standard way does not suit a +\LaTeX-er's requirements, it may be better for the him/her to seek +alternative bibliography-formatting software rather than spending time +trying to circumvent the problems. + +Of course, if people want to put effort into developing hybrid schemes, and +happen to get good {\it modus vivendi} between \LaTeX\ and proprietary +bibliographic systems, I would be delighted to find that my instinct is +wrong! + +\subsubsection{The user's choice} + +Given some {\it modus vivendi}, end-users would be able to make their own +assessments of which bibliographic software suits their needs. +\begin{itemize} + +\item Cost is obviously a factor. + +\item + An end-user who wants software that has been designed specifically for + use in conjunction with \LaTeX, will probably be inclined to choose + \BibTeX\ or Tib. + +\item + \BibTeX's approach makes good use of disk-space. A {\tt .bbl} file + will be smaller than ``near-duplicates of {\tt .tex} files''. + +\item + An end-user who wants ready-made methods of downloading information + from commercial bibliographic databases, library catalogues, etc., + will probably favour one of the proprietary programs. The proprietary + systems also offer database administration and searching facilities. + +\item + Anyone who does not have the time and patience to deduce (from a + proprietary system's wordprocessor-oriented documentation/menus) what + the \LaTeX-er should do might prefer to wait until someone else has + deduced what is required, and has documented the tricks involved. + +\item + The end-user's choice may be constrained by the platform on which they + are using \LaTeX\ (e.g., they may need bibliographic software for a + Unix system). + +\item + Wordprocessor-oriented systems may not support typesetting subleties + to the degree that \LaTeX-ers would like. + +\item + Support (or lack of it) for non-English languages may be another + factor.% +\footnote{Decisions may be needed about whether to try using a proprietary +system's support for diacritics, in the hope of being able to share a +database with colleagues who use wordprocessors. The alternative would be +to have database entries that use \TeX\ encoding for diacritics.} + +\item + End-users may be constrained to use the same system as other people in + their research group (e.g., so that the group can share databases). +\end{itemize} + +It is unlikely that anyone will find bibliographic software that is perfect +for their needs. However, people are more likely to find something that +suits them if they have a choice than if they have no choice. + + +\subsection{OR for \LaTeX\ 3} + +Given the situation outlined in section \ref{background}, I suggest the +following as the OR for \LaTeX\ 3's relationship with +bibliography-formatting software: +\begin{itemize} + +\item + As far as practicable, \LaTeX\ 3 should be neutral towards the + end-user's choice of bibligraphy-formatting software. Ideally, people + should be able to choose typesetting software for typesetting reasons, + and bibliographic software for bibliographic reasons --- their choice + of typesetting software should not restrict their choice of + bibliographic software. +\item + Hence, a {\it modus vivendi} between \LaTeX\ 3 and each of the + ``main 5'' should be thought up, tested and documented.% +\footnote{The {\it modus vivendi} might be along the lines shown in Table +\ref{choice-of-delimiter}, or might be something else that emerges from +practical experience. It doesn't matter much whether the documentation is +provided by the \LaTeX\ 3 project or by the bibliography software vendor, +as long as someone provides it!} + +\item + There might be ``a preferred interface'' between \LaTeX\ 3 and + proprietary bibliographic software. It vendors can be persuaded to + support this interface, \LaTeX-ers will get a consistent interface to + proprietary bibliographic software. If not, things will stay + inconsistent (e.g., as shown in Table \ref{choice-of-delimiter}). + +\item + In line with the neutrality suggested above, \BibTeX\ will continue to + be supported, but \LaTeX\ 3 documentation will not be particularly + pro-\BibTeX. It is desirable that {\tt .bst} files should be updated + so that \BibTeX\ produces \LaTeX\ 3 commands (designed to satisfy the + requirements listed in section \ref{DIY}) rather than \LaTeX\ 2.09 + commands. +\end{itemize} + +\section{Miscellaneous} +\label{misc} + +\subsection{``Local names'' for keys} + +If you are ``doing it yourself'', choice of keys is unlikely to be a +problem. For example, you could equally well use {\tt lamport-86} or {\tt +latexbook} as a key for the \LaTeX\ manual. There is no particular need +for consistency from one document to another: you can use {\tt lamport-86} +as the key in one document, and use {\tt latexbook} as the key in another. + +However, if you have a large bibliographic database (perhaps shared with a +group of colleagues), it may be impracticable to keep track of keys +assigned on an {\it ad hoc} basis, and difficult to guarantee that keys +will stay unique whenever a new item is added to the database. + +Moreover, a {\tt .tex} file to be \verb+\input+ may contain bibliographic +details and \LaTeX\ commands that are generated automatically by +bibliographic software (even though \LaTeX\ will have no way of +distinguishing the file from a one typed in by a DIY-er). Such +bibliographic software might be programmed to assign keys automatically. +For example, software might write a {\tt .tex} file that contains \LaTeX\ +2.09 \verb+\bibitem+ commands, with keys of the form {\tt lamport-86} +constructed automatically from two fields in the database.% +\footnote{Some thought would need giving to any method of assigning keys +automatically. If a bibliographic database is continually growing, there +may be no guarantee that keys of the form {\tt lamport-86} will stay unique +when new items are added to the database. It might be safer to assign less +memorable keys that can be guaranteed to stay distinct, e.g., the ``record +number'' in the database, or a book's ISBN.} + +To help cater for such situations, it might be useful if \LaTeX\ 3 allowed +``local names'' for keys, i.e., some mechanism whereby an author could +declare (e.g., in a document's root file) that, for the duration of a +document, a particular ``informal key'' (to be used in in-text citation +commands) should be treated as a synonym for a ``formal key'' (which +appears in an entry in an automatically generated reference-list). For +example, it might be useful to be able to declare that {\tt latexbook} can +be used as a ``local name'' for {\tt lamport-86}. + + +\subsection{Reference-lists that are also indexes} + +Another requirement that needs to be borne in mind is for reference-lists +which, as well as providing bibliographic details of sources, provide an +index to the pages on which the sources are cited: +\begin{itemize} +\item + in mainstream academic publications, the requirement will probably be + for a ``combined list of references and author index'' \cite[pp.\ 198 + \& 258]{butcher-92} +\item + in law books, the requirement is usually for ``front matter'' units + such as ``table of cases'', ``table of statutes'' and ``table of + treaties''. In a typical ``table of cases'', each entry + tells the reader + \begin{itemize} + \item where further details of the case can be found + (e.g., the relevant law report) + \item which pages in the book's main text mention the case. + \end{itemize} + The other types of tables are analogous. +\end{itemize} + + +\appendix +\section{Some suppliers of mainstream bibliographic software} +\label{suppliers} + + +\begin{description} + +\item[EndNote] + Niles and Associates. 2000 Hearst St, Berkeley, CA 94709, USA. + E-mail: {\tt nilesinc@well.sf.ca.us}. +% UK agents: Cherwell Scientific, 27 Park End Street, Oxford OX1 1HU. +% Tel: 0865 794884. A couple of Cherwell people have JANET addresses +% --- {\tt hodgkina@oxford.vax} is one, I think. + +\item[Library + Master] Balboa Software, P. O. Box 3145, Station D, Willowdale, + Ontario, M2R 3G5, Canada. E-mail: {\tt hahne@epas.utoronto.ca}. +% No UK agent that I know of. +% Current version just does reference-lists. Next version +% should do in-text citations, so they say. + +\item[Papyrus] + Research Software Design, 2718 S. W. Kelly St, Suite 181, Portland, + Oregon 97201, USA. E-mail: {\tt RSD@applelink.apple.com}. +% UK agents: Paul Tharagonnet, European Scientific Software Company, +% Britannia Centre, Point Pleasant, Tyne and Wear, NE28 6HQ. Tel: +% 091-295 3000 + +\item[ProCite] + Personal Bibliographic Software, P. O. Box 4250, Ann Arbor, Michigan + 48106. E-mail: \verb+sales@pbsinc.com+ or \verb+support@pbsinc.com+. +% European Office: PBS. Woodside, Hinksey Hill, Oxford OX1 5AU. Tel: +% 0865 326612. There's a UK user group --- I think some official +% (secretary?) is at Birmingham University somewhere (probably in the +% library). I've forgotten the details. + +\item[Reference + Manager] Research Information Systems, Camino Corporate Center, 2355 + Camino Vida Roble, Carlsbad, CA 92009, USA. E-mail: {\tt + sales@ris.risinc.com}. +% John Cox (Royal Free) thinks the ``best people in the UK'' for RefMan +% stuff are: Bilaney Consultants, St. Julians, Sevenoaks, Kent, TN15 +% 0RX. Tel. 0732 450002. Also sold by: Microinfo, P. O. Box 3, +% Omega Park, Alton, Hants, GU34 2PG. Tel: 0420 86848. + +\end{description} + + +\section{E-mail discussion lists about bibliographic software} +\label{discussion-lists} + +The {\tt bibsoft} list provides a forum for general discussion +of personal bibliographic database management systems. You can subscribe +by sending a one-line e-mail message of the form\\ +{\tt subscribe bibsoft last-name,first-name}\\ +to\\ +{\tt listserv@indycms.iupui.edu}. + +There are also specific discussion lists for EndNote, Library Master and +ProCite. See \cite{stigleman-93}. + +In the United Kingdom, there is a discussion list for Higher Education +institutions that have taken up the {\sc chest} Papyrus deal. You can +subscribe by sending a one-line message of the form\\ +{\tt subscribe chest-papyrus first-name last-name}\\ +to\\ +{\tt mailbase@mailbase.ac.uk}. + +\begin{thebibliography}{10} + +\bibitem{lamport-86} +Leslie Lamport. +\newblock {\em \LaTeX: A Document Preparation System}. +\newblock Addison-Wesley, 1986. + +\bibitem{harvard-law} +{\em The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation}. +\newblock Harvard Law Review Association, 15th edition, 1991. +\newblock Obtainable from: Harvard Law Review Association, 1511 Massachusetts + Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138. + +\bibitem{iso-690} +Documentation --- bibliographic references --- content, form and structure. +\newblock ISO 690, International Organization for Standardization, 1987. + +\bibitem{bennett-93} +Frank~G. Bennett, Jr. +\newblock {Lexi\TeX}: a {\LaTeX} macro package for lawyers. +\newblock Document deposited in electronic archives, 1993. + +\bibitem{butcher-92} +Judith Butcher. +\newblock {\em Copy-editing}. +\newblock Cambridge University Press, 3rd edition, 1992. + +\bibitem{apa-83} +{\em Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association}. +\newblock American Psychological Association, 3rd edition, 1983. +\newblock Obtainable from: American Psychological Association, P. O. Box 2710, + Hyattsville, MD 20784. + +\bibitem{chicago-82} +{\em The {C}hicago Manual of Style}. +\newblock University of Chicago Press, 13th edition, 1982. + +\bibitem{acs-86} +Janet~S. Dodd. +\newblock {\em The ACS Style Guide}. +\newblock American Chemical Society, 1986. + +\bibitem{mhra-91} +{\em MHRA Style Book}. +\newblock Modern Humanities Research Association, 4th edition, 1991. + +\bibitem{mla-88} +Joseph Gibaldi and Walter~S. Achtert, editors. +\newblock {\em MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers}. +\newblock Modern Language Association of America, 3rd edition, 1988. + +\bibitem{vancouver-91} +International~Committee of~Medical Journal~Editors. +\newblock Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical + journals. +\newblock {\em British Medical Journal}, 302:340--341, February 1991. +\newblock Note: This article was also published in the {\it New England Journal + of Medicine} (7th Feb.\ 1991). It specifies the ``Vancouver style'' for + manuscript-preparation, which is accepted by over 400 journals. + +\bibitem{bs-5605} +Citing publications by bibliographic references. +\newblock BS 5605, British Standards Institution, 1978. + +\bibitem{bs-1629} +References to published materials. +\newblock BS 1629, British Standards Institution, 1989. + +\bibitem{bs-6371} +Citation of unpublished documents. +\newblock BS 6371, British Standards Institution, 1983. + +\bibitem{patashnik-88} +Oren Patashnik. +\newblock {BibTeXing}. +\newblock Document deposited in electronic archives, January 1988. + +\bibitem{alexander-89} +James~C. Alexander. +\newblock Tib: A {\TeX} bibliographic preprocessor. +\newblock Document deposited in electronic archives, 1989. + +\bibitem{stigleman-93} +Sue Stigleman. +\newblock Bibliography formatting software: an update. +\newblock {\em Database}, February 1993. + +\end{thebibliography} + +\end{document} |