4 ms·

I'm so confused about the citation: author = {Held, Jan and Vandeghen, Renaud and Deliege, Adrien and Hamdi, Abdullah and Cioppa, Anthony and Giancola, Silvio

I'm so confused about the citation: author = {Held, Jan and Vandeghen, Renaud and Deliege, Adrien and Hamdi, Abdullah and Cioppa, Anthony and Giancola, Silvio and Vedaldi, Andrea and Ghanem, Bernard and Tagliasacchi, Andrea and Van Droogenbroeck, Marc}, while on arxiv and the top of the page Jan Held, Renaud Vandeghen, Adrien Deliege, Abdullah Hamdi, Silvio Giancola, Anthony Cioppa, Andrea Vedaldi, Bernard Ghanem, Andrea Tagliasacchi, Marc Van Droogenbroeck

Nevermark 1y ago
Infix composer "," has precedence over "and". Names are ordered from general/family to specific/given.
cubefox 1y ago
That's just the formatting? author = {surname 1, first name 1 and surname 2, first name 2 and ...} "and" is the separator.
enriquto 1y ago
it's the same list of authors, written in different formats the first one is SURNAME, NAME separated by "and" the second one is NAME SURNAME separated by commas The second one is easier to read by humans, but the first one makes it clearer what is the surname (which would be ambiguous otherwise, when there are composite names). But then again, the first format breaks when someone has "and" in their name, which is not unheard of.
- growlNark 1y ago
  Why do they use "and"? Why not use an unambiguous joining token like `/`? This just feels like an abuse of informal language to produce fundamentally formal data. As it stands, it certainly does not resemble readable or parseable english.
  - bowsamic 1y ago
    It’s how the bibtex author field is defined. You don’t get free choice here. As far as I’m aware bibtex defines and as the separator https://bibtex.eu/fields/author/ https://bibtex.eu/fields/author/
    - growlNark 1y ago
      Yea but like... why? Typically you use human language operators to produce readable phrases, and this doesn't even approach readable english.
      - bowsamic 1y ago
        The answer is probably who knows since we are talking about software from 1985 which was only updated once since 1988 to clarify its licensing
      - jameshart 1y ago
        The person who designed it was solving primarily for lexical sorting of the author field, thought maybe having more than two authors was an edge case, and wanted the two author case to be a logical extension of the single author one?
  - robotresearcher 1y ago
    It’s BibTex format. It’s ancient, ubiquitous, very fussy, and reads badly for humans in some cases. But it’s what we’ve been using since the 1980s. ‘Better’ formats have been proposed but none have stuck nearly as well. It works, and there’s tooling for it.

Nevermark 1y ago

Infix composer "," has precedence over "and". Names are ordered from general/family to specific/given.

cubefox 1y ago

That's just the formatting? author = {surname 1, first name 1 and surname 2, first name 2 and ...} "and" is the separator.

enriquto 1y ago

it's the same list of authors, written in different formats the first one is SURNAME, NAME separated by "and" the second one is NAME SURNAME separated by commas The second one is easier to read by humans, but the first one makes it clearer what is the surname (which would be ambiguous otherwise, when there are composite names). But then again, the first format breaks when someone has "and" in their name, which is not unheard of.

growlNark 1y ago
Why do they use "and"? Why not use an unambiguous joining token like `/`? This just feels like an abuse of informal language to produce fundamentally formal data. As it stands, it certainly does not resemble readable or parseable english.
- bowsamic 1y ago
  It’s how the bibtex author field is defined. You don’t get free choice here. As far as I’m aware bibtex defines and as the separator https://bibtex.eu/fields/author/ https://bibtex.eu/fields/author/
  - growlNark 1y ago
    Yea but like... why? Typically you use human language operators to produce readable phrases, and this doesn't even approach readable english.
    - bowsamic 1y ago
      The answer is probably who knows since we are talking about software from 1985 which was only updated once since 1988 to clarify its licensing
    - jameshart 1y ago
      The person who designed it was solving primarily for lexical sorting of the author field, thought maybe having more than two authors was an edge case, and wanted the two author case to be a logical extension of the single author one?
- robotresearcher 1y ago
  It’s BibTex format. It’s ancient, ubiquitous, very fussy, and reads badly for humans in some cases. But it’s what we’ve been using since the 1980s. ‘Better’ formats have been proposed but none have stuck nearly as well. It works, and there’s tooling for it.