1

I would like to cite inproceedings properly in a (computer science) PhD thesis. For that, I use DBLP. There, you typically find references for inproceedings in the following way:

   @inproceedings{DBLP:conf/www/Berners-Lee11,
  author    = {Tim Berners{-}Lee},
  title     = {Designing the web for an open society},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web,
               {WWW} 2011, Hyderabad, India, March 28 - April 1, 2011},
  pages     = {3--4},
  year      = {2011},
  crossref  = {DBLP:conf/www/2011},
  url       = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1963405.1963408},
  doi       = {10.1145/1963405.1963408},
  timestamp = {Mon, 12 Sep 2016 08:22:52 +0200},
  biburl    = {http://dblp.dagstuhl.de/rec/bib/conf/www/Berners-Lee11},
  bibsource = {dblp computer science bibliography, http://dblp.org}
}

As you can see, the year is mentioned both in the attribute "booktitle" and in the attribute "year". Is it really common to keep the year twice in such inproceeding references, so that the year is printed twice? Or should I even delete "March 28 - April 1, 2011"?

0

1 Answer 1

2

The issue you've encountered is yet another illustration of why one should never assume something is correct simply because "it was obtained from somewhere on the Internet" -- even from a supposedly reputable source such as dblp.org.

A quick check reveals that the entry's booktitle field is wrong: The substring ", Hyderabad, India, March 28 - April 1, 2011" is not part of the real title of the publication. Delete the substring from that field! If you feel it's important to mention where and when the conference was held, you could add a venue field to the entry:

    venue  = {Hyderabad, India, March 28--April 1},

Note that I would leave off the year-related piece of information since it'll be shown anyway. I would also use an en-dash rather than a simple dash.

The corrected entry might therefore look like this:

@inproceedings{DBLP:conf/www/Berners-Lee11,
  author    = {Tim Berners{-}Lee},
  title     = {Designing the web for an open society},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web ({WWW} 2011)},
  venue     = {Hyderabad, India, March 28--April 1},
  pages     = {3--4},
  year      = {2011},
  crossref  = {DBLP:conf/www/2011},
  url       = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1963405.1963408},
  doi       = {10.1145/1963405.1963408},
  timestamp = {Mon, 12 Sep 2016 08:22:52 +0200},
  biburl    = {http://dblp.dagstuhl.de/rec/bib/conf/www/Berners-Lee11},
  bibsource = {dblp computer science bibliography, http://dblp.org}
}
2
  • At least for biblatex one would put the date of the meeting into a separate field: worth noting?
    – Joseph Wright
    Jan 2, 2017 at 10:55
  • @JosephWright - I've changed the field name from location to venue. (I had been under the mistaken impression that location, in biblatex speak, referred to the location of the event. Upon perusing the biblatex manual some more, I realize now that "location" is supposed to be reserved for the address of the publisher. In BibTeX jargon, this was called the address field.) If I create the field eventdate = March 28--April 1, 2011, I get a complaint from biber about an improper date format. It's because of this difficulty that I suggested combining the location and date information.
    – Mico
    Jan 2, 2017 at 11:11

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .