Yes, you're right Emmanuel. I guess this goes back to my file type/extension issue then.
I do expect this to be a non-issue in time though, as related packages update to fully support all three common input formats. On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 1:29 PM CHARPENTIER Emmanuel <emmanuel.charpent...@aphp.fr> wrote: > > > It seems like that should not be the case, i.e. if you define > > BIBLIOGRAPHY keywords it means you do not want to use the ones in > > org-cite-global-bibliography. Is there a scenario where the union of > > those makes sense? > > Yes indeed: you may have > - A library for background issues (e. g. methodology) > - A (or several) subject matter-specific library (e. g. a > subdiscipline, a method, etc...) > - A library specific to the question you are discussing (e. g. > results of a bibliographic search specific to your question). > > The first one is a perfect target for org-cite-global-bibliography. The > last one is of course a target for #+BIBLIOGRAPHY ; I'd tend to let the > subject matter library as a file-specific #+BIBLIOGRAPHY (my subject > matters tend to vary...), but this depends on your field. > > You may also think of this typology as books, reviews and research > papers respectively... > > HTH, > > -- > Emmanuel Charpentier >
