-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
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
DOI references not matching RFC 2629 DTD #228
Comments
@stefanomunarini can we add tests to validate bibitems (selection of tests across all datasets) against the BibXML schema? |
bibxml-service reference: https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml-doi/reference.DOI.10.1145/2975159.xml New bibxml-service output's |
Right, this needs to be fixed (@strogonoff ). I think it may be fixed by #215 (@stefanomunarini ).
@kesara while this could be useful, in
|
Can anyone point to preexisting IETF’s xml2rfc tools Crossref API handler (i.e., what code runs under /public/rfc/bibxml-doi/)? https://github.com/ietf-tools/xml2rfc-bibxml doesn’t seem to have it🤔 |
What you're looking for is in the RFP, in the section for bibxml7. |
@strogonoff the bibxml-doi code is here: https://github.com/ietf-tools/xml2rfc-website/tree/56c0be788c4fd22ae475302dcd399439815927f0/public/rfc/bibxml-doi It uses |
I'm a little perplexed: our doi2ietf already implements dates but why is not serialised into BibXML?
Yes we need to adopt the dates from the Crossref API and map them to the Relaton model. Relaton supports these date/time types: Crossref metadata includes the following date/times:
We should concatenate the Crossref
As I pointed out in https://github.com/ietf-ribose/bibxml-service/issues/228#issuecomment-1175771552 , we really want explicit permission from @rjsparks that this is correct usage of |
We are not using doi2ietf for at least these two reasons:
With that in mind, it was faster to bypass doi2ietf-py and implement this directly in bibxml-service and relaton-py.
Yes, @stefanomunarini’s PRs should take care of all that. It’s aimed to port the requisite functionality from doi2ietf-py into both bibxml-service Crossref DOI parser and relaton-py serializer. I’ll merge them once we confirm that new |
@ronaldtse It is expected that seriesinfo will have more than the 3 possible names listed in 7991. We will make sure that gets clarified in 7991bis. A better thing to read at the moment is the seriesInfo entry at https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary |
Note that the RPC uses seriesInfo for documents that are part of a series and have a unique value. Examples of document series include RFC, IEEE Std, ITU Recommendation, DOI, 3GPP TR, 3GPP TS, ISO/IEC, and FIPS PUB.
|
Thanks @rjsparks @ajeanmahoney . Valid values for
|
seriesInfo name and value attributes take freeform text. The name attribute holds the name of the series. The RPC uses the following seriesInfo names:
These are what we have identified so far. We will be discussing this list this week. |
Thanks @ajeanmahoney , since there's going to be a discussion if you don't mind let us provide some additional input 😉 Basis:
Questions:
Thanks! |
Can I clarify where is @ronaldtse While this particular issue may have been resolved, since we can rely on DOI to provide at least one date, we cannot be so sure with some other sources. For example, we have recently found that some 3GPP documents are lacking dates, and this may be the case with other sources.
|
There are some cases where a date is never provided in a bib entry (IANA registry entries, for instance). Sometimes, an author points to a landing page for a spec (a 3GPP or IEEE entry may fall into this category). Those kind of entries don't have dates. I haven't looked to see if the bibxml-service datastore contains landing-page references. |
refererences without dates are syntactically legal and appropriate in cases like Jean calls out above. But when the document does have a publication date (as the original DOI the ticket was opened with), the date must be provided, well formed, in the reference. |
I think I've pointed this out in other places, but rfc2629.dtd is not v3 rfcxml - it is strict v2, and while we want to be v2 backwards compatible as much as we can be, there are many RFCs in the v2 era that were published with references that didn't contain dates. In short, date cannot be treated as a mandatory element here. |
From @kesara ietf-tools/xml2rfc#804 (comment)
Tests are failing because reference.DOI.10.1145/2975159 doesn't have
date
element underfront
element.This violates
rfc2629.dtd
.Originally posted by @kesara in ietf-tools/xml2rfc#804 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: