On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, Peter von Kaehne <ref...@gmx.net> wrote: > Modules really should have bibtex or something similar in their conf > file. This would improve the use of our library for academic purposes.
Some design questions for you. (Always better to fix bug in design than in the debug or production phase. Standard software engineering procedures; the more time spent in design the less time in the debugger.) a) How does the end user get the bibliographic citation out of the .conf file for a module? b) How does an end user reformat a specific citation from obtained from Sword converted to another format? c) Why not delegate the bibliographic information to the module provider? Chris Little mentioned in an email that it would be possible to generate the bibliographic information on the Crosswire server. Why not leave it there and the very few people who really need it can grab it from the server. d) Why does any mention of Sword (or Crosswire) need to be made for those modules that have not been through some textual amendation process? In citing a book, paper, article, or other resource discovered online one doesn't say "found with Google", or "in a search result from Bing." The bibliographic information a scholar would require is author(s)/editor(s), year of publication , edition, place(s) of publication. In the main those are going to be the original publisher. Crosswire only needs be credited if copy-editing changes have been made to the text; I contend that claiming for marking up a module is unecessary. Regards, Trevor <>< Re: deemed! _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
