RTF Scan numbering incorrect

fritz.meissner
The output of RTF scan is not matching up with the bibliography it prints at the end of the document. For instance:

{Heeks, 2008}

is correctly identified in the disambiguation window, and appears in the bibliography as:

18. Heeks, R. ICT4D 2.0: The Next Phase of Applying ICT for International Development. Computer 41, 6 (2008), 26–33.

But in the text of my document, the reference numbering in the same position is: [1].

This happens with many of the references in the document. It looks like the RTF scan is numbering text references by order of appearance in the document, while the bibliography has been sorted alphabetically.

I am using the ACM SIGCHI reference format. What could I be doing wrong? Is this a bug or is there a setting I don't know about?
  • fritz.meissner
    edited April 18, 2013
    Scratch that suggestion about ordering, the problem is far less predicatable than that. Two completely different references:

    {UN, 2000}
    {Benjamin, 2001}

    ... have both been given an in text numbering [2]. Both appear in the bibliography, but again with completely different numbering:

    31. United Nations. United Nations Millennium Development Goals. 2000. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/global.shtml.

    3. Benjamin, P. Telecentres in South Africa. The Journal of Development Communication Telecenters & ICT for Development-Critical Perspectives & Visions for the Future 12, 2 (2001).

    So this looks very much like a bug. This is only a draft for now so if anyone knows a reference format that does work I don't mind switching.
  • adamsmith
    RTF Scan isn't tested heavily and needs some attention, so this could very much be a bug.
    My guess would be this is due to the fact that SIGCHI does in fact sort alphabetically in the bib, which is not terribly common for a numeric style. Try IEEE?
  • fritz.meissner
    IEEE does appear to be working, thank you.
  • adamsmith
    it's still a bug, of course, but at least now we have it narrowed down.
    I won't make any promises on how quickly we'll fix that, though, RTF Scan is a bit of a stepchild.
  • fritz.meissner
    No problem - IEEE will do just as well for me. Computer Science department not too worried about which standard, as long as there is evidence that A standard is being followed :).
  • fbennett
    On a quick look at the code, I think I see how this could be fixed without too much trouble. It's using a function in the processor that was meant for this purpose, but apparently doesn't resolve bibliography entries correctly. I've since added a smarter (and faster) function for building cites for a whole document. If we slot that in, that style should work correctly as well.

    I'll work up a patch against 4.0 sometime soon.
  • fbennett
    I've put up a pull request to fix this. We'll see how it fares in the review process.
  • fbennett
    Well, that was quick. Simon has reviewed and merged the change, so the ACM SIGCHI Proceedings style should work well with RTF Scan from the next Zotero release.

    If there have been irregularities in disambiguation with RTF Scan (not sure if there have been, but if), they should also clear up with this fix.

This is an old discussion that has not been active in a long time. Before commenting here, you should strongly consider starting a new discussion instead. If you think the content of this discussion is still relevant, you can link to it from your new discussion.

Sign In or Register to comment.