Menu
▾
▴
#1276 OpenOffice Plugin - alphabetical Reference List not sorted properly
Hello,
creating a reference list with the OpenOffice plugin and an alphabetical order has some problems.
- Usually contributions of the same author use the year of publication as a second sorting criteria. JabRef, however, seems the order them by random:
an example of my reference list:
Leiber, Simone (2012), »Aufwachen oder weitermachen?«, in: Reinhard Bispinck/Gerhard Bosch/Klaus Hofemann u.a. (Hg.), Sozialpolitik und Sozialstaat, Wiesbaden, S. 427–449.
Leiber, Simone (2005), »Formen und Verbreitung der betrieblichen Altersvorsorge – Eine Zwischenbilanz«, in: WSI-Mitteilungen, H. 6, S. 314–321.
- Contributions of the same author published in the same year also get sorted by random and do not take the a/b... extension of the year into account:
an example of my reference list:
Kellermann, Paul (2007b), »Moneyismus – Der Glaube an Geld als Alltagsreligion«, in: Paul Kellermann (Hg.), Die Geldgesellschaft und ihr Glaube, Wiesbaden, S. 115–126.
Kellermann, Paul (2007a) (Hg.), Die Geldgesellschaft und ihr Glaube, Wiesbaden.
Related
Hello,
after doing some tests, I may have narrowed the problem down to some patterns:
These are my hypotheses:
At the moment the class OOBibBase uses two different sortings for sorting Bibtex entrys:
year, author, editor IF MultiCiteChronological == TRUE
ELSE
author, editor, year, title, key
Could in your case the difference be in having a different editor? In your last example, you have the same AUTHOR but the second book does not have the same EDITOR.
Thanks for the answer. However I was talking about sorting in the
bibliography. I thought the option multicitechronological is for sorting
within the text.
On Friday, 26 June 2015, Simon Harrer yoghurt2k@users.sf.net wrote:
Related
Bugs: #1276
Thank you for your answer. You are right. I had another look at the code:
From what I understand now the code does the following:
IF IsSortByPosition == TRUE THEN sort by position in text
ELSE author, editor, year, title, key
Do you have this IsSortByPosition set? By default it is set to false. Then again, it would be the issue with the editor.
Hello Simon,
IsSortByPosition is set to false in my case. So indeed the pattern you
describe, can explain why my bibliography is ordered in a strange way.
After all, for me the sorting criteria result in a bug. Because it
creates bibliographies, which are definitely not in line with academic
standards. In my case editor could be deleted as a sorting criteria,
because I use the author field when I refer to the type "collection".
A proper algorithm, however, should use either author OR editor,
while prioritizing the former.
Felix
On 26 June 2015 at 15:09, Simon Harrer yoghurt2k@users.sf.net wrote:
Related
Bugs: #1276
I have removed the editor field from both sort methods. Can you try out if this helps? http://ge.tt/9Idc446
Hello Simon,
it works perfect for me. Thanks a lot.
After a short look at the bibtex definitions, deleting editor as a sorting
criteria causes problems for the entrytype "inproceedings" (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BibTeX#Entry_types) where editor is an
optional field and not author. The same could apply to "collection" (I
don't know which fields jabref suggests on a blank installation). These
types would be ordered in a wrong way in your improved version. a
conditional usage of editor IF author is empty would solve these problems.
In any case your contribution is a significant improvement - and works
perfectly fine in my case.
Thanks felix
On 30 June 2015 at 15:36, Simon Harrer yoghurt2k@users.sf.net wrote:
Related
Bugs: #1276
You have a point there in general.
But sorting always requires to compare two bibtex entries. What if entry A does have only author but no editor, and entry B has only an editor but no author? What should the ordering of such types be? Should we compare the author with the editor field? In the current implementation this would require additional coding as the current structure only allows to sort by field.
Ok. Unfortunately I am not used to java so I havn't looked at the coding
structure. In principle I meant the sorting mechanism you describe - but if
that requires additional coding, it may be the best solution to keep it
like in your currently implemented version.
*
The code structure I had in mind was something like this:
var tmp=author
if author is empty then tmp=editor
sort tmp
On 1 July 2015 at 10:25, Simon Harrer yoghurt2k@users.sf.net wrote:
Related
Bugs: #1276