Re: [O] org-exp-bibtex missing in git?

[Jambunathan K]

Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> writes:

> I favor [cite:PROPERTIES] over [[cite:PROPERTIES]], because the latter
> (link syntax) implies a (optional) description part. I don't think
> a description is ever meaningful in citations.

I have been holding on to this for a while.  Just typing it out as it
comes to my mind.

I favor the above syntax.  

I view Citations as closer to Footnotes.  The syntax should parallels
footnotes syntax.

1. PROPERTIES should be opaque to Org.  It is a key or a list of keys
   possibly bibtex but Org doesn't take stand on how it looks like.
   
2. There will be a org-BACKEND-citation-reference.
3. There will be a org-BACKEND-bibliography.

2, 3 more likely with interface with respective citation processor
(citation processor as opposed to a database) via CLI.  Citation
processor could be whatever org-exp-bibtex interfaces with right now.  I
also have some proof-of-concept - see zotcite - for zotero.

2, 3 will parallel footnote-reference and footnote-section callbacks in
HTML backend.

4. Footnotes can be introduced with either fn: prefix or cite: prefix.
   There should be a way to put fn: and cite: in same enumeration
   context.  There should be a way to put fn: and cite: in different
   enumeration context.  The former case could be a degenerate mode
   where Org can transcode what is seen in the buffer where everything
   is footnotes.  The latter case will result in Citations and
   Bibliography being generated by the above backend transcoders.

5. Citation definitions in Org buffer will be *ignored*.  (It could be
   considered when the exporter works in a degenerate footnote only mode
   where plain text transcoding is resorted to because there is no
   suitable application available for the backend format.)  Plain text
   citation definitions are only to help the author have a glimpse of
   what he is doing, it has only UI-value but no contents value.

6. There may be an advisory citation style - say APA, Chicago etc -
   which the backends may honor or ignore.

I am not clear about:

1. How multiple keys are to be handled.
2. What prenotes or postnotes mean.
3. Chicago note style etc.


I think the community should answer and articulate 1, 2, 3 clearly.
With my proposal, there could be some minor changes in Footnotes
normalization and some minor changes in existing transcoders.

The Org syntax for citations should *at this point* in time should NOT
make any assumptions about the Citation Database or the Citation
Application.  As far Org is concerned, there should be a way for Emacs
to interact with these engines and have them return Citation Refernece
and Citation Defintion contents in required backend format.

--