On Dec 13, 2007, at 6:01 PM, Christiaan Hofman wrote: > I still don't think webpage is the proper type to use, as BibDesk is > mostly used for (article) references, and therefore I would expect a > URL that is dropped to be typically a remote version of an article. > That's also the way we've always interpreted it.
It's possible that the type should just be "electronic" for references where the primary source is targeted by a URL. I don't really mind, as long as it's consistent. We're going to be seeing more of this so I think it's a reasonable time to address the issue. In my writing, electronic source documents are a minority of my citations but have been steadily becoming more common over the past three years. These might include, for example, online standards documents and overviews like those from IBM's DeveloperWorks. Even Wikipedia often provides a brief clear overview of a topic (particularly related to IT) that is physically and intellectually accessible to people in other domains (eg, it's useful when you need to reference an IT topic for expanded explanation when you're writing to a medical audience). I typically write for traditional journal and book publication, plus grant applications, but my bibliographies have become a mix of traditional articles and electronic sources. Jim Harrison Univ. of Virginia ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace _______________________________________________ Bibdesk-users mailing list Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
