Thu 02 Mar 2017 04:46:26 PM UTC, comment #8:
Done: http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/9b5d5c2697bc .
Closing report.
|
Tue 21 Feb 2017 02:20:30 PM UTC, comment #7:
To finish this discussion, I suggest the following: As explained in comment #5 and comment #6, having a permalink is desirable. We already have this mechanism, for example https://www.gnu.org/software/octave/doc/v4.2.0 will forever point to the same manual.
==> No need for a DOI. Just replace the symlink to the latest manual https://www.gnu.org/software/octave/doc/interpreter/ by the link above.
If no one disagrees, I'll provide a CSET starting next week.
|
Thu 08 Sep 2016 04:15:42 PM UTC, comment #6:
Good point. The URL field in the CITATION always points to the latest version of the documentation which may not be appropriate.
I'm re-opening and re-titling the report, but I don't have the time right now to get a DOI.
|
Wed 07 Sep 2016 02:35:40 PM UTC, comment #5:
For academic publications a digital object identifier (DOI) is useful, which could be obtained for example from: http://zenodo.org . The DOI is a perma-link to a document that fixes the citation to the intended version of Octave's pdf of the documentation. This may be advantageous if the citation references a to-be-removed function.
|
Wed 07 Sep 2016 01:56:00 PM UTC, comment #4:
I updated the CITATION text to use @manual since that appears more correct. According to BiBtex a manual could use the following syntax.
I used
I think this should be good enough, but I don't write academic papers. If someone who does feels it is important to have the organization, address, and edition fields then they can prepare a cset for that.
|
Mon 28 Mar 2016 03:27:55 PM UTC, comment #3:
While it would be nice to earn a few dollars for Octave, I don't think anyone actually buys printed manuals much anymore. And then there are all those trees that die for hard copy that becomes out-of-date in a year. I, myself, much prefer pdf manuals that I can search through with the find feature and that have clickable hyperlikns. Unless there is an objection, I would change the Bibtex type to @manual and update the fields.
|
Sat 06 Feb 2016 11:00:15 PM UTC, comment #2:
Would it make sense to make the Manual more
widely available, including some of the online
formats and possibly offer it on Amazon?
This would require some work due in part to the
current texinfo flow. But, it would, I think,
be helpful to have a version of the Manual with
helpful hyperlinks, etc.
|
Sat 06 Feb 2016 09:12:55 PM UTC, comment #1:
The URL is actually pointing to the 4.0.0 manual, as the PDF does:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/octave/doc/interpreter/?root=octave
only the date is "wrong", wasn't changed from 2013 to 2015.
I think the @book bibtex code is due to the previous publishing as real book, therefore the publisher would be "Network Theory Ltd":
http://www.network-theory.co.uk/octave/manual/
@jwe: are there any plans for a fourth real book version? Otherwise I suggest that I change it to @booklet or @manual.
|
Wed 03 Feb 2016 11:13:57 PM UTC, original submission:
The citation command without argument returns bibtex code for a "@BOOK" entry but misses the required "publisher"-key. Should this rather be a "@BOOKLET" which has a "how-published"-key that could hold the URL?
Secondly, the URL provided in the "url"-key ( http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/doc/interpreter/ ) leads to page which has an outdated copyright year. I propose to use the link to the pdf here ( http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/octave.pdf ) that is up to date.
|