Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

make tests for authors #32

Closed
LinguList opened this issue May 18, 2020 · 6 comments
Closed

make tests for authors #32

LinguList opened this issue May 18, 2020 · 6 comments

Comments

@LinguList
Copy link
Contributor

Authors are bibtex-styled, so we expect: multiple authors split by " and ", and then we have familyname, firstname or firstname familyname.

I assume, given that pybtex is also not strong in this regard, that we best add an Author class doing the parsing here? It should raise an error if there are multiple commas and no and or AND, for example.

I am also fine with a regex in the attr.ib evaluation.

@SimonGreenhill
Copy link
Contributor

Hmm, we have this information in two places -- the bibtex and the csv file. Do we need it in the csv at all ? Or a simple check would be 'does the string in the csv match the string in the bibtex'

@LinguList
Copy link
Contributor Author

It is not that easy. The information seems duplicated, but it isn't, as you can see from Yakhontov's lists: The author of the reference is Sergei Starostin, but he quotes PC with Yakhontov, so Yakhontov is the author of the list.

@SimonGreenhill
Copy link
Contributor

Ahh, ok. I guess you could add these to the bibtex, so then then citekeys just need to go in the csv file?

@LinguList
Copy link
Contributor Author

Nope, there is no real reference for Yakhontov as an author of that list, the reference and source is Starostin, making a fake reference feels bad. We had a longer discussion about this in the beginning of concepticon, and I pulled out quite a few of those examples where an author of a list is not the author of the reference in which the list occurs. It's less than 5% of what we have now, I admit, but I want to keep a "humanities" attitude towards referencing, and this seems quite the best way to me. I guess, a regex in the evaluation is trivial, and won't blow the code... (even less complicated than adding these to the references now).

@SimonGreenhill
Copy link
Contributor

Ok :)

@xrotwang
Copy link
Contributor

see #34

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants