On Apr 14, 2014, at 11:01, Christiaan Hofman <cmhof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Again, the main point is that they are used for searching. That's a repeating
> action, not a one-time setting. Therefore being short is the most important
> aspect, and not being really clear in the meaning (that may only be relevant
> the first few times you use it.) Then you make a connection to these terms in
> your brain, and use it from then on. For this, it is actually good if they
> are distinct, rather than looking similar (like CITING and CITED). Now, maybe
> you can get different and opposite meanings from both CIT and REF, but I
> already argued that can be said for really any term you make here. So giving
> up on short and concise to to try being more clear buys you exactly nothing
> but costs a lot (every time you have to type these few more characters.) From
> that pov I think CIT and REF look really good. Again, it is not the most
> important thing that they really have unambiguous meaning. It is more
> relevant if you can make a clear association in your brain,. just to remember
> which is which. I have really no problem with that. For me, citations of an
> article are the ones that cite the article (citingArticles). And reference of
> an articles are the ones that it refers to, i.e. the bibliography
> (citedReferences.) I thought these were pretty standard meanings. I am not
> saying you can change formulations such that these terms may mean the
> opposite, but that's not what's relevant.
>
> Christiaan
For the sake of argument, let’s accept those definitions. Each article has a
list of articles that it references, and a list of articles that cite it. Each
article also has a list of authors. Using the WOK syntax, "AU=Doe J” returns
articles that have an author equal to “Doe J” in the author list. By that same
logic, shouldn’t “REF=WOS:XXX” return articles that have an article with ID
WOS:XXX in the list of references, and “CIT=WOS:YYY” return articles that have
an article with ID WOS:YYY in the list of articles citing it? Thus, at the very
minimum, to be consistent I think the syntax should be reversed in your current
proposal. You’ve argued that consistency is important, and that it doesn’t
actually matter so much what the characters are, so would you agree that this
is a reasonable proposal?
Cheers,
Colin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book
"Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their
applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field,
this first edition is now available. Download your free book today!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/NeoTech
_______________________________________________
Bibdesk-develop mailing list
Bibdesk-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-develop
