Segregating normative and informative bibliography about asciidoctor-bibliography HOT 8 CLOSED

@paolobrasolin the syntax looks great to me! If there is no group given we can keep the reference in the "default" reference group.

from asciidoctor-bibliography.

I agree with @opoudjis that we have a strong need to separate bibliography groups. However I don't think BibTeX is the right place to do it because it corrupts the BibTeX file -- the BibTeX file is simply the database for ALL bibliography items and is often just a huge collection that is shared between multiple documents (sorry I do that a lot).

On the other hand, the MMark concept of "upgrading" bibliography item types from "informative" to "normative" does not resonate with me because the groups are simply "different".

How about we consider something like this?

cite:[rfc1234,group="group1"]
cite:[rfc2345,group="group2"]

[bibliography]
=== Group 1 References
bibliography::[group1]

=== Group 2 References
bibliography::[group2]

from asciidoctor-bibliography.

I agree that grouping should be done in the document, not the bibtex file.

We should also consider the possibility that one bibliography item can belong to two or more groups.

from asciidoctor-bibliography.

Indeed, and the decision whether a bibliography item should belong to multiple groups should be decided by the “citer”.

from asciidoctor-bibliography.

I agree with @ronaldtse and @blablatros in thinking that DB data should be agnostic with respect to groupings. Groups are in essence "roles" and will almost surely depend upon the specific use the citer makes of the entries.

I gave some thought to groupings when writing the macro parser and laid some simple groundwork.
What I had in mind was using the target syntax for asciidoctor macros. I.e.:

cite:group1[rfc1234]
cite:group2[rfc2345]

[bibliography]
=== Group 1 References
bibliography::group1[]

=== Group 2 References
bibliography::group2[]

How does that look?

from asciidoctor-bibliography.

That works. The abbreviations "norm" and "info" are going to be more user-friendly, and we can assume them for asciidoctor-rfc.

from asciidoctor-bibliography.

It is better to let the users choose group names.

For example, social sciences, especially history, often groups references into "primary" and "secondary".

from asciidoctor-bibliography.

@blablatros indeed we should allow users to choose group names.

I think @opoudjis just means that in the asciidoctor-rfc gem we could have some special syntax to use those bibliography groups, because those are specific requirements of an RFC. Or perhaps we don't even need to specify those specific groups at all since the syntax above is quite clean and simple?

from asciidoctor-bibliography.