On Apr 17, 2014, at 11:20, Fischlin Andreas wrote:
>
> On 17/04/2014, at 11:11 , Christiaan Hofman wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:57, Fischlin Andreas wrote:
>
> Dear Christiaan (and others):
>
> I investigated at our library. It seems the most widespread subscription that
> most institutions have, i.e. the most likely default is now
>
> Web of ScienceTM Core Collection (1900-present)
>
> This consists of these editions:
>
>
> * Science Citation Index Expanded (1900-present)
> * Social Sciences Citation Index (1900-present)
> * Arts & Humanities Citation Index (1975-present)
> * Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Science (1990-present)
> * Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Social Science & Humanities
> (1990-present)
> * Current Chemical Reactions (1985-present)
> (Includes Institut National de la Propriete Industrielle structure data back
> to 1840)
> * Index Chemicus (1993-present)
>
> Our library promised to find out whether it is actually possible to have also
> a subscription which would consist of only WOS, which would be cheaper, and
> would not have SSCI and other editions. They promised me an answer by mid
> next week.
>
> Then I learned that SciELO Citation Index (1997-present) costs nothing, since
> it accesses open access journals. It accesses "scholarly literature in
> sciences, social sciences, arts and humanities published in leading open
> access journals from Latin American, Portugal, Spain and South Africa".
>
> Therefore it is likely that any subscriber also has that data base available.
>
> Note, that our library has confirmed me that TR is changing these things all
> the time and that some further changes are in the doing for this summer. What
> exactly, however, they could not tell me, but data bases offers will change
> once more and perhaps some shuffling around will happen, perhaps similar to
> having now "WOS Core Collection" subsuming a lot, which was previously all
> offered as separate data bases. While the term
>
> Web Of Science continues to be emphasized by TR, notably via "WOS Core
> Collection", the URL of the service remains WOK, e.g. this URL (when
> selecting a data base):
>
> http://apps.webofknowledge.com/select_databases.do?highlighted_tab=select_databases&product=UA&SID=V2HBRSkThEvG8DvLq2x&last_prod=WOS&cacheurl=no
>
> See how this looks at my institution, i.e. ETH Zurich, in all details via
> this ftp offer:
>
> ftp://ftp.sysecol.ethz.ch/docs/afischli/for-BibDesk_developers/
>
> I hope this is of some help. If you would need other information, let me know
> and I will try to learn more through my connections to our library people
> (who are very helpful, hands basically bound by TR).
>
> Regards,
> Andreas
>
>
> On 16/04/2014, at 11:25 , Christiaan Hofman wrote:
>
> What default servers for WOK should we have? We used to have default servers
> for all WOS editions. But that may now not be so important, as we can search
> for whole databases now. But it may be good to have at least some default
> servers for editions, to have examples of the database syntax for editions.
> But I have no idea which one would be the most relevant, and perhaps having
> them all may be too many. At the least we should have one for WOS itself.
> Should we have the whole WOK as a default server? And other databases?
>
> Also, I think we can best make some overview of the available database IDs on
> the Wiki. Does anyone know a full overview from WOK? I find it very hard to
> find that information, it is spread around, and often incomplete (I have
> found various lists of databases and editions, as well as lists of IDs for
> them, but they never seem to match with each other.)
>
> BTW, the format for the operations is now that proposed by Colin, so citedby:
> citing: related: uid:. It should still be documented though.
>
> Christiaan
>
> I wonder whether it would just be sufficient to offer "WOK", "WOS", and "WOS
> SCI" as default servers, and let the reset be handled by the user. The last
> one mainly to show the use of editions, but probably for most users just WOS
> would be OK. I found using WOK considerably slower, and some times it does
> actually seem to hang, usually on one particular database that seems to be
> down, so it makes sense to prefer WOS over WOK.
>
> Indeed WOK being all data bases may be well be slower for good reasons.
> Whether WOS alone exists, is questionable AFAIK and is the reason why I
> inquired (answer by mid next week). So, if WOS means actually "WOS Core
> Collection" (does it?), then "WOS SCI" would always be included and it does
> not make sense to distinguish between "WOS" and "WOS SCI", doesn't it?
>
> Andreas
>
>
> Christiaan
WOS is the database ID for World of Science. It searches all editions that fall
under your subscription. So, yes, it would include SCI. But as with WOS over
WOK, it may also be more efficient/fast if you;re only interested in one
edition to just restrict to one (or several) edition. I can imagine users not
being interested in biology, so why the overhead of searching those editions,
and having those also filtered out of your results? But I would like to include
this as a default server mainly to offer an example of a server for a specific
edition, to showcase the syntax. but it's also why I don't think it necessary
to include all editions as default servers.
Christiaan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
