tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post3523591733113004045..comments2024-03-14T01:32:43.610-06:00Comments on The Geomblog: Dating a result..Suresh Venkatasubramanianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15898357513326041822noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post-55354956995817035632010-04-22T15:00:40.732-06:002010-04-22T15:00:40.732-06:00What if you do not know about the earlier anouncem...What if you do not know about the earlier anouncement of some result?Datinghttp://www.luvfree.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post-638859057018651472007-03-06T23:22:00.000-07:002007-03-06T23:22:00.000-07:00That's neat, Boaz. Thanks for the pointer.That's neat, Boaz. Thanks for the pointer.Suresh Venkatasubramanianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15898357513326041822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post-42793839107547906022007-03-06T16:38:00.000-07:002007-03-06T16:38:00.000-07:00I use the same solution as anon 2 - the key will b...I use the same solution as anon 2 - the key will be [ALMSS92] but the actual citation is to the journal version, where I add a note about when the preliminary version appeared.<BR/><BR/>In fact, I even made a small modification to the bibtex style file that adds a field "PrelimYear" for this purpose. You can find it here<BR/><BR/>http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~boaz/latex/alphasy.bst<BR/><BR/>http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~boaz/latex/alphas.bst<BR/><BR/>Boaz BarakAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post-64166680335982827932007-03-04T06:57:00.000-07:002007-03-04T06:57:00.000-07:00The second anonymous comment sounds perfect actual...The second anonymous comment sounds perfect actually. <BR/>From what appears in the text, one is interested in the info that helps for the easy reading, and a pointer to the details. It is sufficient to give all the details like journal version etc etc in the reference text, but it is always better to have the first date of official announcement of the result (may be the refereed conference date) in the main text. This helps in getting the picture about the timing of the result right there without having to search through the reference.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post-75774672168879984982007-03-01T04:16:00.000-07:002007-03-01T04:16:00.000-07:00Suffix array was defined in the early '90s \cite{1...Suffix array was defined in the early '90s \cite{1993journal}. (where conf version was in 1990).<BR/><BR/>"starting with \cite{conf92} there was a lot of activity in PCP \cite{definitive version}the 90s ..."-type of usage.<BR/><BR/>"Primality... \cite{2004} was announced in 2002."<BR/><BR/>It should be clear from the text (and the fact that ideas are in the air for sometime) that if you give a first anouncement year and cite a journal version of a different year there is no error.<BR/><BR/>What if you do not know about the earlier anouncement of some result?<BR/><BR/>BTW, What does Knuth do?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post-6862523982248895742007-02-28T07:35:00.000-07:002007-02-28T07:35:00.000-07:00For situations like this, I typically write in the...For situations like this, I typically write in the bibliography under the same item (journal version) that earlier or preliminary version appeared in conf X (specially if such a note exists in the journal version).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post-32930057354343698202007-02-27T05:24:00.000-07:002007-02-27T05:24:00.000-07:00In the text, cite the announcement date and then i...In the text, cite the announcement date and then in the bibliography give the details of the journal version with a note saying "First appeared in ..." or "First announced at ..."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post-1373574172465745442007-02-27T04:53:00.000-07:002007-02-27T04:53:00.000-07:00Just cite both versions...But it can be a problem ...Just cite both versions...<BR/><BR/>But it can be a problem - consider the Clarkson-Shor technique (journal version), which is in fact Clarkson technique (conference version).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com