</reftype> </layout> </bibliography> ``` --- <div class="post-metadata"> **Author:** ![Johan\_Kool1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3da27b/32.png) [@Johan\_Kool1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Johan_Kool1)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2005, 1:33pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/take-1-on-csl-mods/115/2 "2005-11-26T13:33:12Z") </div> Better late than never, they say, so here are my suggestions: 1- leaving the grouping in places seems like a good idea to me, but I am not so sure if it’s necessary to wrap and in a group of their own . 2- Are you going to let the user specify the group for each citation? So citation gets a group attribute? How do you handle citations that appear twice, but get assigned (by mistake) to different groups? (list them in both groups I would suggest) Otherwise, it seems okay to me. Regards, Johan --- <div class="post-metadata"> **Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2005, 2:12pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/take-1-on-csl-mods/115/3 "2005-11-26T14:12:53Z") </div> > Better late than never, they say, so here are my suggestions: Yes, thanks! > 1- leaving the grouping in places seems like a good idea to me, but I > am not so sure if it’s necessary to wrap and in a > group of their own . I have no strong opinion on this. As I metioned before, there may be some technical reasons why not to do this. Existing structure is: terms media medium genres genre In the schema, I can leave the order of those groups insignificant. If I remove the wrappers, then I would have to enforce order; like: medium medium genre genre etc. As I said, I have no strong opinion, and the decision should be based on how easy each it is for implementers. OTOH, I want to trty to get the logic of CSL into OpenDocument, and there there will be a premium on compactness. > 2- Are you going to let the user specify the group for each citation? > So citation gets a group attribute? How do you handle citations that > appear twice, but get assigned (by mistake) to different groups? > (list them in both groups I would suggest) No, where the groups aren’t automatic, they’d be specified in the metadata with some sort of flag. Bruce --- <div class="post-metadata"> **Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2005, 9:58pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/take-1-on-csl-mods/115/4 "2005-11-26T21:58:21Z") </div> Followup: can you imagine doing a GUi for this grouping config, where one may have two levels of grouping? The example someone gave me was: Primary Sources Published Unpublished Secondary Sources Bruce --- <div class="post-metadata"> **Author:** ![Johan\_Kool1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3da27b/32.png) [@Johan\_Kool1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Johan_Kool1)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2005, 11:34pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/take-1-on-csl-mods/115/5 "2005-11-27T23:34:15Z") </div> Yes. An extra tab labelled “Groups” in this part:Op 26-nov-2005, om 21:58 heeft Bruce D’Arcus het volgende geschreven: ![](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/uploads/citationstyles/original/1X/fe38626cf676dc9bf6e5ccea711283e320b718bc.png) --- <div class="post-metadata"> **Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2005, 11:52pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/take-1-on-csl-mods/115/6 "2005-11-27T23:52:02Z") </div> Ok, so long as you can imagine it, that’s great. As you can see, I had some refinements today, and am also more comfortable with it. That suggests calling the “groups” tag "organization", unless someone has a better name. BTW, as I’ve designed it, that structure would also be used to specifiy the reference list heading even if there were no sections. That’s among the reason I got rid of the “group” language. You had requested this feature earlier also, so let me know what you think. Bruce --- <div class="post-metadata"> **Author:** ![Johan\_Kool1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3da27b/32.png) [@Johan\_Kool1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Johan_Kool1)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 12:18am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/take-1-on-csl-mods/115/7 "2005-11-29T00:18:41Z") </div> > > 1- leaving the grouping in places seems like a good idea to me, but I > > am not so sure if it’s necessary to wrap and in a > > group of their own . > > I have no strong opinion on this. As I metioned before, there may be > some technical reasons why not to do this. Existing structure is: > > terms > media > medium > genres > genre > > In the schema, I can leave the order of those groups insignificant. > If I remove the wrappers, then I would have to enforce order; like: > > medium > medium > genre > genre > etc. I was actually more thinking: media medium genres genre Grouping per term is nice, but no need to group the terms in its own tag, right? Bye, Johan --- <div class="post-metadata"> **Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 1:40am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/take-1-on-csl-mods/115/8 "2005-11-29T01:40:13Z") </div> Right. Bruce

# take 1 on CSL mods **URL:** \ **Category:** CSL Development\ **Created:** [November 23, 2005, 6:14pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/take-1-on-csl-mods/115 "2005-11-23T18:14:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1

**Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2005, 6:14pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/take-1-on-csl-mods/115/1 "2005-11-23T18:14:23Z")

OK, here’s the outline of the current draft, where I’m trying to incorporate Johan’s earlier comments with my interest in solving the grouping issue. Comments inline: ``` </reftype> </layout> </bibliography> ``` --- <div class="post-metadata"> **Author:** ![Johan\_Kool1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3da27b/32.png) [@Johan\_Kool1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Johan_Kool1)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2005, 1:33pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/take-1-on-csl-mods/115/2 "2005-11-26T13:33:12Z") </div> Better late than never, they say, so here are my suggestions: 1- leaving the grouping in places seems like a good idea to me, but I am not so sure if it’s necessary to wrap and in a group of their own . 2- Are you going to let the user specify the group for each citation? So citation gets a group attribute? How do you handle citations that appear twice, but get assigned (by mistake) to different groups? (list them in both groups I would suggest) Otherwise, it seems okay to me. Regards, Johan --- <div class="post-metadata"> **Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2005, 2:12pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/take-1-on-csl-mods/115/3 "2005-11-26T14:12:53Z") </div> > Better late than never, they say, so here are my suggestions: Yes, thanks! > 1- leaving the grouping in places seems like a good idea to me, but I > am not so sure if it’s necessary to wrap and in a > group of their own . I have no strong opinion on this. As I metioned before, there may be some technical reasons why not to do this. Existing structure is: terms media medium genres genre In the schema, I can leave the order of those groups insignificant. If I remove the wrappers, then I would have to enforce order; like: medium medium genre genre etc. As I said, I have no strong opinion, and the decision should be based on how easy each it is for implementers. OTOH, I want to trty to get the logic of CSL into OpenDocument, and there there will be a premium on compactness. > 2- Are you going to let the user specify the group for each citation? > So citation gets a group attribute? How do you handle citations that > appear twice, but get assigned (by mistake) to different groups? > (list them in both groups I would suggest) No, where the groups aren’t automatic, they’d be specified in the metadata with some sort of flag. Bruce --- <div class="post-metadata"> **Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2005, 9:58pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/take-1-on-csl-mods/115/4 "2005-11-26T21:58:21Z") </div> Followup: can you imagine doing a GUi for this grouping config, where one may have two levels of grouping? The example someone gave me was: Primary Sources Published Unpublished Secondary Sources Bruce --- <div class="post-metadata"> **Author:** ![Johan\_Kool1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3da27b/32.png) [@Johan\_Kool1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Johan_Kool1)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2005, 11:34pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/take-1-on-csl-mods/115/5 "2005-11-27T23:34:15Z") </div> Yes. An extra tab labelled “Groups” in this part:Op 26-nov-2005, om 21:58 heeft Bruce D’Arcus het volgende geschreven: ![](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/uploads/citationstyles/original/1X/fe38626cf676dc9bf6e5ccea711283e320b718bc.png) --- <div class="post-metadata"> **Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2005, 11:52pm UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/take-1-on-csl-mods/115/6 "2005-11-27T23:52:02Z") </div> Ok, so long as you can imagine it, that’s great. As you can see, I had some refinements today, and am also more comfortable with it. That suggests calling the “groups” tag "organization", unless someone has a better name. BTW, as I’ve designed it, that structure would also be used to specifiy the reference list heading even if there were no sections. That’s among the reason I got rid of the “group” language. You had requested this feature earlier also, so let me know what you think. Bruce --- <div class="post-metadata"> **Author:** ![Johan\_Kool1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3da27b/32.png) [@Johan\_Kool1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Johan_Kool1)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 12:18am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/take-1-on-csl-mods/115/7 "2005-11-29T00:18:41Z") </div> > > 1- leaving the grouping in places seems like a good idea to me, but I > > am not so sure if it’s necessary to wrap and in a > > group of their own . > > I have no strong opinion on this. As I metioned before, there may be > some technical reasons why not to do this. Existing structure is: > > terms > media > medium > genres > genre > > In the schema, I can leave the order of those groups insignificant. > If I remove the wrappers, then I would have to enforce order; like: > > medium > medium > genre > genre > etc. I was actually more thinking: media medium genres genre Grouping per term is nice, but no need to group the terms in its own tag, right? Bye, Johan --- <div class="post-metadata"> **Author:** ![Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_D\_Arcus1](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/u/Bruce_D_Arcus1)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 1:40am UTC](https://discourse.citationstyles.org/t/take-1-on-csl-mods/115/8 "2005-11-29T01:40:13Z") </div> Right. Bruce