<div dir="ltr">I would encourage Dan to update this in his canonical citation link:<div><br></div><div><div>canonical citation</div><div>Flickinger 2000 ([<a href="http://lingo.stanford.edu/danf/ergbib.txt">http://lingo.stanford.edu/danf/ergbib.txt</a> .bib])</div></div><div><br></div><div>And also to add a citation.bib file to the ERG itself with both papers listed.</div><div><br></div><div>And then maybe update the grammar catalogue :-).</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 6:23 AM, Ned Letcher <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ned@nedned.net" target="_blank">ned@nedned.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hi Olga,<div><br></div><div>I recently asked Dan about canonical ERG citations. He said to me that, in addition to Flickinger 2000, he's recently started also citing the following:</div><div><br></div><div><span class="m_-7951706674250512836inbox-inbox-lG" style="background-color:rgba(251,246,167,0.5);outline:transparent dashed 1px;font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:16px">Flickinger</span><span style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:16px">, D. (2011) "Accuracy vs. Robustness in Grammar Engineering," in E.M. Bender and J.E. Arnold, eds. Language from a Cognitive Perspective: Grammar, Usage, and Processing, pp. 31--50. CSLI Publications, Stanford.</span> </div><div><br></div><div>So he typically cites the ERG as (Flickinger 2000, 2011).</div><div><br></div><div>Hope that helps,</div><div>Ned</div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 at 22:48 Olga Zamaraeva <<a href="mailto:olzama@uw.edu" target="_blank">olzama@uw.edu</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">One of my reviewers recently was unhappy about my ERG citation in the introduction (Flickinger, 2000) since it made them think the technology I am using was very old. So much so they misread the accompanying 2014 citation and thought that also dated back to 2000. They did not notice that, in the section where we give the overview of the approach, we give also the version number, the URL for the online demo etc. I am assuming this first mention made them so disinterested they did not really want to read the paper in detail.<div><br></div><div>Are there some recent things to cite, when referring to ERG in general? It would look better I think if it were something like (... 2000; ... 2010; ... 2016). Better than a footnote saying something like "yes we know it is 2000, but it is under constant development".</div><div><br></div><div>Perhaps this would be a good one?</div><div><br></div><div><pre style="word-wrap:break-word;white-space:pre-wrap">@inproceedings{<wbr>flickinger2014towards, title={Towards an Encyclopedia of Compositional Semantics: Documenting the Interface of the English Resource Grammar.}, author={Flickinger, Dan and Bender, Emily M and Oepen, Stephan}, booktitle={LREC}, pages={875--881}, year={2014} }</pre>Anything else?<br></div><div><br></div><div>Thanks!</div></div><div dir="ltr"><div>Olga</div></div></blockquote></div> </div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Francis Bond <<a href="http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/home/fcbond/" target="_blank">http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/home/fcbond/</a>><br>Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies<br>Nanyang Technological University<br></div> </div>