Re: [jats-list] Element for wrapping a group of xref elements

[Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Kaveh and JATS-List,

Regarding specifications of encoding and transformations for display
of bibliographic cross-references:

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Kaveh Bazargan <kaveh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I do take your points, but I would say that most of these can be
> auto-generated by putting an attribute in the XML, which is then
> passed to the pagination system which generates the correct visual
> output. See for instance the natbib package for TeX:
>
> http://merkel.zoneo.net/Latex/natbib.php

I agree with you that logic like this is possible and indeed not
terribly difficult to implement given available tools. (In fact,
although an xref wrapper element might make some things a bit easier,
this logic can be done even with the current JATS model, given a
strong enough specification of inputs. It's the last part that's key.)

Yet as you know, the deeper question is whether publishers can have
the advantages of retooling to take advantage of this potential, while
at the same time doing things the way they've always been done, both
with respect to editorial process and workflow, and with respect to
look-and-feel of the presentation.

> I would also suggest that the traditional forms for citations are a
> legacy of the print days. If most people are reading electronically
> perhaps we should change the way we show refs in PDFs, because full
> info can be obtained by hovering over the reference.
>
> In any case at the very least we can put the correct labels for
> author/year, as we are now, but have the option of creating numerical
> refs instead.

True, and this also goes to the point: "if most people are reading
electronically" is still a big if, especially considering the broadest
range of applications and users and the longest time frames.

Then too, XML is often sold as a "both/and" technology ... and indeed
I believe that even in the present case, a both/and solution -- a
workable common ground between traditional and new --  is often
possible. It just might not be possible in the general case, given how
extreme both "traditional" and "new" can be.

In other words, I'm with you all along the way as long as we're
talking about implementing a particular system for a particular
publisher, who can make assessments and judge risks and rewards for
themselves. When it comes to recommending, instituting or enforcing a
community or industry standard -- maybe not so much.

>> In cross references of equations, theorems and theorem like
>> environments, there are myriad instances that evade automatic and
>> straight forward generation of labels in body text. I won't say it is
>> impossible, but the resources spent on will be disproportionate and
>> often not fun.
>>
>> More importantly, we are forgetting the vital aspect of freedom of
>> author to communicate in the way he wants it to happen. XML is to
>> assist the author and not that authors should play to the conveniences
>> of XML or technologies.
>
> Well, if authors realised what they can gain by assisting the
> production of a fully structured document (e.g. text mining, reading
> by the blind), I think they perhaps they would be happy to lose a
> little of tradition in prose... The problem is that most authors have
> no idea of what can be done. Publishers don't help, by hiding their
> XML in "archives", and not publishing them even to subscribers. ;-)

Again, it's a big if. I'll suggest we reword this and say "when
authors realize what they can gain..." etc. And agree wholeheartedly.

But in many places, that day is not here and may be slow in coming.

I do believe that publishers can lead; but I also think a "standard"
does better to follow.

Then too, when that day is here -- authors won't be writing what they
write now, but something different. (Maybe better in many ways, but
different.) In the meantime, keep in mind that authors too are
designers, just as are layout and production people. All of us have
notions of the right way to do it -- in fact we will know that day is
here when authors start besieging publishers with feature requests to
be sorted, reconciled and prioritized, presenting an entirely new
problem.

Given this, I think much of the effort given to reform other people's
practice (by means of standards development or other activities) might
be better spent in demonstrating what can be done, exposing how it is
done (again I agree with you), and making it easier for others to
emulate.

You can't force the donkey to eat the carrot!

Cheers, Wendell

--
Wendell Piez | http://www.wendellpiez.com
XML | XSLT | electronic publishing
Eat Your Vegetables
_____oo_________o_o___ooooo____ooooooo_^