On Apr 13, 2014, at 19:51, Colin A. Smith wrote:
> On Apr 13, 2014, at 19:15, Christiaan Hofman <cmhof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 13, 2014, at 17:08, Colin A. Smith wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 13, 2014, at 10:30, Christiaan Hofman <cmhof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Apr 13, 2014, at 10:24, Colin A. Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 12, 2014, at 17:09, Christiaan Hofman <cmhof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 12, 2014, at 15:38, Colin A. Smith wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 2014, at 14:46, Christiaan Hofman <cmhof...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As for the alternate operations, I am not completely sure about it,
>>>>>>>> though I guess something like citations can be useful. I hate the
>>>>>>>> syntax as it now is: the prefixes are far too long, and the syntax is
>>>>>>>> inconsistent, and using ":" is wrong IMHO because that character also
>>>>>>>> occurs in the UID. I propose to use something that looks more like the
>>>>>>>> search syntax, by devising some alternate "search fields", for
>>>>>>>> instance CITED=, CITING=, REL=, and UID=. Those are all unused.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't have any strong preferences about the syntax. I think CITEDBY
>>>>>>> is less ambiguous than CITED, though two characters longer. I think
>>>>>>> CITING is good, and that's the only one I really care about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Colin
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What about REF= and CIT= for references (citedReferences) and citations
>>>>>> (citingArticles)?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think those are even more ambiguous. For something that would in most
>>>>> cases be generated by a script, I think it's more important to be self
>>>>> explanatory than concise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Colin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think that is a bit contradictory. Especially when they would be
>>>> generated by a script it really would not matter much what they are,
>>>> including ambiguous, because the user doesn't need to remember them. On
>>>> the other hand, you seem to be too much looking at your own individual use
>>>> rather than the general use, as I doubt this would in most cases come from
>>>> a script. I think it is more important to be concise and consistent.
>>>>
>>>> Christiaan
>>>
>>>
>>> If I have two scripts next to each other in a menu that do each operation,
>>> and I happen to run both (or I slip and am not sure which one I ran), I’d
>>> like it to be clear and unambiguous which one was run, without having to
>>> remember what each means.
>>>
>>> I have thought about use cases that don’t involve scripts. If you have two
>>> search terms, “REF” and “CIT”, and you’re trying to remember which means
>>> look up papers that cite a given Wok-Uid, and which one means look up
>>> papers that are cited by a given Wok-Uid, then I don’t see an obvious way
>>> of knowing which is which, beyond memorization. At least to me,
>>> “reference” and “cite” (or “referencing” or “citing”) are fairly, perhaps
>>> not exactly, synonymous. Using abbreviations of reasonably synonymous words
>>> to represent very different things seems like a recipe for confusion to me,
>>> and not very consistent.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Colin
>>
>> The problem with that is that this applies to all terms. All terms can be
>> interpreted always ambiguously two ways (from the point of view of the items
>> you search for the items from which you search). So this cannot be avoided.
>> So you always have to somehow remember. Also, all the search terms in WOK
>> searches are not clear, they are all very short (usually two letters) that
>> you just should know.
>
> I think it’s actually advantageous to distinguish the search operations from
> WOK search terms. By masquerading the other search operations as search
> terms, it could create the impression they can be combined through boolean
> operations, which could cause confusion.
Just don't do it, and say so in the help. Otherwise, they will just see it
won't work. that's easily learned. I think having a similar syntax gives much
more advantage than disadvantage.
> In that regard, the colon actually give bit more transparency than the equals
> sign.
The colon us really bad, as it is occurs in the UIDs.
>
>> So if you just remember what they stand for, like "references" and
>> "citations" (for the item), I think it really makes sense.
>
> Perhaps you could share the definitions you’re thinking of for the terms
> “references” and “citations”, because this really doesn’t make sense to me.
>
>> The thing is, as soon as I try to think of any action term (like citing or
>> cited-by) I get confused, as I don't know from which POV I should interpret
>> that (items citing this item or items that this item are citing?)
>
> The point of view is more clear you preserve the order of the elements in the
> search query and make a sentence by prepending "Show me articles":
>
> Show me articles CITED BY WOS:XXXXX
> Show me articles CITING WOS:XXXXX
>
> Perhaps there’s a way to preserve the order of the elements and make a
> sentence that implies the other point of view, but I don’t think that’s
> possible without adding intervening words. The equals sign does make things
> more ambiguous, because there aren’t nouns, like “PARENT” or “CHILD”, that
> describe relationships between papers without conjugation or prepositions.
Auch, that sounds like AppleScript. And that's a horror, we should not come
close to this. The point is not to write sensible questions. the point is to
efficiently write search terms. This is something that you potential do a lot.
That's why being succinct is not just good, but really important. It's exactly
why the old form is so very bad. The other search terms are also not like
"AUTHOR=xxx", but "AU=xxx". It has to be unambiguous (in terms of the
definitions), not necessarily all sensible English.
>
>> I don't get this confusion when I think of it in terms of "references" and
>> "citations". And "ref" and "cit" are actually very common shorthands for
>> those terms.
>
>
> You might hate the idea, but one way to resolve this would be to have two
> terms for each operation, REF/CITEDBY for citedReferences and CIT/CITING for
> citingArticles.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Colin
I think that's unnecessary, it only confuses things. Why remember two things,
when one is sufficient? the thing I like about REF and CIT is not that they so
much that they are super clear, I think that's not so irrelevant, but rather
that they're distinct and succinct, so efficient. For instance I think CITEDBY
and CITING look too much alike, so they get more easily confused, and that's
bad for its purpose. In the end you just have to remember what the term is
anyway, so better have a clear difference. the actual meaning is not so
important, what is important is that you can attach some meaning to it, just to
remember it. It's not about guessing what it is, it's about remembering what it
is.
Christiaan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Put Bad Developers to Shame
Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration
Continuously Automate Build, Test & Deployment
Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees
_______________________________________________
Bibdesk-develop mailing list
Bibdesk-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-develop
