On Apr 14, 2014, at 12:21, Christiaan Hofman <cmhof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 2014, at 12:08, Colin A. Smith wrote:
>
>> On Apr 14, 2014, at 11:42, Christiaan Hofman <cmhof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think it’s pretty clear that we strongly disagree on whether it’s a good
>> idea to use the same syntax (“=“) to express equality/similarity and
>> relationships.
>
> Than which character? I explained why : is bad. And I don't see a problem
> with =. And another character requires explaining this other syntax in
> addition to the tags used, I don't see what this adds.
I disagree that the colon is bad. Having a colon in the UID does not mean it
can’t be used after the search operation keyword, especially with a very
specific syntax that would be required to trigger the operation. I’m not alone
in thinking colons work well with search operators (see especially the “link:"
operator):
https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/136861?hl=en
>> We also disagree on whether typing 3-4 additional characters in addition to
>> a copy/paste operation is worth it users in terms of the improvement in
>> clarity.
>
> You cannot copy/paste the UID and the prefix at the same time. This is not an
> option.
Perhaps there was a miscommunication. Typing “CIT=“/“REF=“ vs.
“CITING:”/“CITEDBY:” is a difference of 3-4 characters. I would assume that the
vast majority of users not using a script would copy and paste the Wok-Uid,
which I believe we agreed would include the “WOS:” prefix. That’s why I think
with either syntax, users will still have a copy/paste operation, leaving the
sole difference being the 3-4 characters of additional typing.
As an aside, in the name of ease of use, it should be allowed and documented
that all caps is not required for CIT, REF, or whatever you decide to do.
>> I believe how useful those 3-4 additional characters are in improving
>> clarity strongly hinges on whether one uses “=“, “:”, or some other
>> separator.
>
> I don't see that.
An equals sign almost always implies equality or matching in search queries. I
believe the most natural parsing of CIT=XXX would be “citation equals/matches
XXX”, which I believe gets in the way of making the meaning self-evident. A
colon does not have have that baggage and makes it much more natural to
understand “CITEDBY:XXX” as “cited by XXX”. I believe you think it’s impossible
to make the search syntax self-explanatory, but that is again something we
disagree upon.
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
