citeproc-rb conference papers

CSL Development
1

Liam,

I saw you checked in the start of your biblio ontology model and tests.
Looking good!

One problem, though; on this:

def test_presented_at
assert_equal(‘An Important Conference’,
@document.presented_at.agent.name)
assert_equal(‘Some textual product.’, @document.presented_at.product)
assert_equal(10000, @document.presented_at.time.end.to_i -
@document.presented_at.time.start.to_i)
assert_equal(50, @document.presented_at.place.latitude)
assert_equal(45, @document.presented_at.place.longitude)
assert_equal(0, @document.presented_at.place.altitude)

I have to say two things about where we’re at with this kind of example
in the RDF work:

First, I’m not fond on the reliance of the really abstract modeling of
event and location. I’ve been complaining about this since the beginning.

Second, and more about your modeling I think, the conference name is
really an attribute of the event object. The organization is the sponsor
(or something else I don’t recall if we ever finally settled).

For example, my big meeting is the “Annual Meeting of the Association of
American Geographers”. It is sponsored/hostedBy/whatever “the
Association of American Geographers”.

So, for example, I think the test should be:

 assert_equal('An Important Conference', @document.presented_at.name)

… or perhaps that last method is “title” (?).

None of this is a big deal, but I just wanted to warn you about it, and
flag it as something that needs to be settled in the ontology.

Bruce

2

Thanks Bruce,

Yes, you’re right re: the model - hadn’t really thought that through. I’ll
update it over the week-end.

One of the issues with ontology re-use is along these lines of unwanted
complexity and abstraction. At this stage I’m just trying to retain as much
fidelity to the ontology as possible. But ‘place’ probably should be a
simple text value, like ‘London’?

I’m hoping to have some time over the week-end to work some more on this - I
have the rudiments of a CSL parser and object model, which I’d like to bring
to a point of completeness.

Regards,

Liam.

3

Liam Magee wrote:

One of the issues with ontology re-use is along these lines of unwanted
complexity and abstraction. At this stage I’m just trying to retain as
much fidelity to the ontology as possible. But ‘place’ probably should
be a simple text value, like ‘London’?

That’s my preference.

You can imagine that in the RDF there would be value in treating it a
resource with a URI. I guess in that case you might end up with:

x.presented_at.place.name

But as I said, this needs to get settled.

I’m hoping to have some time over the week-end to work some more on this

  • I have the rudiments of a CSL parser and object model, which I’d like
    to bring to a point of completeness.

Cool!

Bruce