0

I would like to reference chapter 2 from course 36 course notes of SIGGRAPH 2002 (an annual conference in computer graphics), but I don't understand what biblatex entry type it should be.

The course notes have a clear publisher and editor, so it's not @unpublished as suggested here. It's not an article in the proceedings (or is it? I'm not sure if the courses are part of the proceedings) so it's not @inproceedings. It's not a book, et.c., et.c...

I'm hesitant to put it under @misc because conference course notes should be common enough to have a designated entry type.

Do conference course notes have a biblatex entry type? In that case, which one?

  • Well, if it is not in the proceedings, it should indeed not be an @inproceedings. Where did you get it from? Maybe @online is a good match, otherwise @misc will do fine. – moewe Apr 18 '17 at 15:48
  • @moewe The course notes can be found at csee.umbc.edu/~olano/s2002c36 Look at Chapter 2. But honestly, I'm not sure of what constitutes the proceedings? Are the courses held at the proceedings @inproceedings? – Mossmyr Apr 18 '17 at 15:54
  • Isn't this highly opinion based? I would use @online an link directly to the chapter file. – Schweinebacke Apr 18 '17 at 16:00
1

This course (https://www.csee.umbc.edu/~olano/s2002c36/) does not seem to be contained in any official publication surrounding SIGGRAPH 2002. The only mention I could find was http://www.siggraph.org/s2002/conference/courses/crs36.html.

You could simply use @online. But @misc is also OK. I would even be fine with @unpublished since the whole thing does not seem to have been published in the way books are, much less like an @article with peer review and all.

@inproceedings (and @proceedings) entries are appropriate if the work/article appears in a collection the likes of Proceedings of the 29th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques. The proceedings can be edited by the conference chair and published by or via the conference organisers (maybe by an associated publisher). Those entry types are essentially enhanced versions of @incollection (@collection respectively) with fields for more detailed information on the conference (venue, conference date as opposed to publishing/print date of the book, etc.).

Ultimately, it depends on the output you look for and on your style.

  • Fair enough. Now that I look again I can't find an editor or publisher. I guess I'll go with @online. Thanks for the thorough explanation. – Mossmyr Apr 18 '17 at 16:09
1

Great question! I've had this issue countless of times, and I always come back to inproceedings when I need to use references from conferences, keynotes or workshops.

I usually do like the below (using nielsen as example):

@InProceedings{nielsen1994usabilityconference,
   author     = {Jakob Nielsen},
   title      = {Usability inspection methods},
   booktitle  = {Conference companion on Human factors in computing 
                 systems - {CHI} {\textquotesingle}94},
   year       = {1994},
   date       = {1994-04-24},
   eventtitle = {CHI {\textquotesingle}94 Conference Companion on Human
                 Factors in Computing Systems},
   series     = {CHI {\textquotesingle}94},
   publisher  = {{ACM} Press},
   location   = {Boston, Massachusetts, USA},
   isbn       = {0-89791-651-4},
   pages      = {413--414}, % noting the pages where i found it.
   doi        = {10.1145/259963.260531},
   url        = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/259963.260531},
   acmid      = {260531},
   address    = {New York, NY, USA},
   groups     = {Online Articles}, % personal organization
   numpages   = {2},
   urldate    = {1970-01-01},
        }

Another example:

@InProceedings{bhor2016analysisofweb,
   author    = {R. V. Bhor and H. K. Khanuja},
   title     = {Analysis of web application security mechanism and Attack
                Detection using Vulnerability injection technique},
   booktitle = {2016 International Conference on Computing Communication
                Control and automation (ICCUBEA)},
   year      = {2016},
   pages     = {1-6},
   doi       = {10.1109/ICCUBEA.2016.7860004},
   groups    = {Online Articles},
   keywords  = {Browsers;Computer crime;Databases;Monitoring;
                Payloads;Servers;Attack;Denial-of-service;SQL injection;
                Vulnerability;web application},
   urldate   = {1970-01-01},
}

Ultimately, it is very much up to you to decide, as long as you make sure that the information is correct.

  • Yeah, you are probably right. It was just to indicate. It is fixed now – Ole Anders Apr 18 '17 at 17:10
  • Also note that in the case in question the lecture notes were not part of 'officially' published conference proceedings. In your case it is quite uncontroversial that one should use @inproceedings. But in the OP's case its more tricky. – moewe Apr 18 '17 at 17:10
  • In OP's case it is difficult to provide a final answer, there is no definitive answer in my opinion. I just try to give some options :) – Ole Anders Apr 18 '17 at 17:15
  • Indeed, I do believe however that in the OP's special case (I can't say anything about general things) quite a bit of evidence points towards it not being an @inproceedings. Most notably that the SIGGRAPH 2002 proceedings don't contain the course notes. In the examples you give, however, as I said, @inproceedings is just the right choice (even if things could be streamlined for biblatex). – moewe Apr 18 '17 at 17:21

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.