The Bibtex format --format bibtex was not changed, and the new format --format biblatex was added, the new format biblatex was build on top of the bibtex implementation, the source code of Bibtex was duplicated and modified to add the new fields below:
abstract
date
repository
license
version
institution
editor
swhid
keywords
Important to mention that the fields institution and editor doesn't have a straight match with any field from CFF format, AFAIK. My approach was to collect it from the field contact from the CITATION.cff.
The biblatex-software documentation defines the field institution such as:
"The institution(s) that took part in the software project"
I am not sure we have this kind of field on CITATION.cff, the strategy adopted here for the institution field is:
Search for the contact field in CITATION.cff
If a contact field is found search for the 1st entry that matches the criteria below
The contact has the field name defined
Add it to the institution field
The biblatex-software documentation defines the field editor such as:
"The coordinator(s) of large modular software projects"
Again, I am not sure we have this kind of field on CITATION.cff, the strategy adopted here for the editor field is:
Search for the contact field in CITATION.cff
If a contact field is found search for entries that matches the criteria below
The contact doesn't have the field name
The contact has the field given-names defined
The contact has the field family-names defined
Add given-names and family-names of all contacts to the output
Below you can see how the results between bibtex and biblatex differs for the same input file.
@misc{YourReferenceHere,
author = {Spaaks, Jurriaan H. and Klaver, Tom},
doi = {10.5281/zenodo.1162057},
month = {1},
title = {cffconvert},
url = {https://github.com/citation-file-format/cffconvert},
year = {2018}
}
@software{YourReferenceHere,
author = {Spaaks, Jurriaan H. and Klaver, Tom},
doi = {10.5281/zenodo.1162057},
month = {1},
title = {cffconvert},
url = {https://github.com/citation-file-format/cffconvert},
year = {2018},
date = {2018-01-16},
repository = {https://github.com/citation-file-format/cffconvert},
license = {Apache-2.0},
version = {1.0.0},
keywords = {citation, bibliography, cff, CITATION.cff}
}
Questions
I believe the code added by this PR is good but not good enough, I think I need some inputs from the more-experienced here about the compatibility between the CFF schema and the biblatex-software schema, specially for the fields editor and institution, the strategy that I've adopted is based on my experience using CITATION.cff to document some of my projects, where I have used the CITATION.cff contact field to describe who is the institution and the editors of the software project I am working on.
That said, I would like to ask: What do you think about the code proposed here, and about the strategy adopted for the fields I've mentioned?
This Pull-Request adds support for converting
CITATION.cff
to biblatex-software format adding the new--format biblatex
, eg:The Bibtex format
--format bibtex
was not changed, and the new format--format biblatex
was added, the new formatbiblatex
was build on top of thebibtex
implementation, the source code of Bibtex was duplicated and modified to add the new fields below:Important to mention that the fields
institution
andeditor
doesn't have a straight match with any field from CFF format, AFAIK. My approach was to collect it from the fieldcontact
from theCITATION.cff
.The
biblatex-software
documentation defines the field institution such as:I am not sure we have this kind of field on CITATION.cff, the strategy adopted here for the
institution
field is:contact
field in CITATION.cffcontact
field is found search for the 1st entry that matches the criteria belowname
definedinstitution
fieldThe
biblatex-software
documentation defines the field editor such as:Again, I am not sure we have this kind of field on CITATION.cff, the strategy adopted here for the
editor
field is:contact
field in CITATION.cffcontact
field is found search for entries that matches the criteria belowname
given-names
definedfamily-names
definedgiven-names
andfamily-names
of all contacts to the outputBelow you can see how the results between
bibtex
andbiblatex
differs for the same input file.Example of use for the
bibtex
formatExample of use for the
biblatex
formatQuestions
I believe the code added by this PR is good but not good enough, I think I need some inputs from the more-experienced here about the compatibility between the CFF schema and the biblatex-software schema, specially for the fields editor and institution, the strategy that I've adopted is based on my experience using CITATION.cff to document some of my projects, where I have used the CITATION.cff
contact
field to describe who is the institution and the editors of the software project I am working on.That said, I would like to ask: What do you think about the code proposed here, and about the strategy adopted for the fields I've mentioned?
Thanks for you time and your attention.
Closes: #152