In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christiaan Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7 May 2008, at 10:33 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote: > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > > James Howison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> On May 6, 2008, at 9:55 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> On May 6, 2008, at 6:17 PM, James Howison wrote: > >>> > >>>> I usually use Copy as RIS to exchange references with the poor sods > >>>> using Endnote. However recently (I think) I've noticed that > >>>> BibDesk > >>>> doesn't include the TY (type) of reference, which confuses > >>>> Endnote no > >>>> end. I'm pretty sure that RIS should always have that filled out: > >>>> > >>>> http://www.refman.com/support/risformat_tags_01.asp > >>> > >>> You are absolutely right, and I just checked in a fix for it; it's > >>> been broken for several months. I only tested it with your example, > >>> so more testing is welcome. Incidentally, I fixed another random > >>> bug > >>> in RIS export that's been around since March 2006, due to a change > >>> to > >>> support PubMed's bastard RIS. Apparently RIS doesn't get a lot of > >>> use... > >> > >> Hi, using today's daily I tried this with my correspondent. I see > >> that TY is now included but he still had issues. We both realize > >> that > >> RIS is poorly defined, and it might be an Endnote importing thing. > > > > RIS at least has a published spec; unfortunately, BibDesk is doing a > > crappy job exporting it. I never noticed this because BibDesk can > > read > > its own output back in (and I never tried Endnote). > > > > Basically the problem is that BibDesk has a dictionary mapping RIS > > tags > > to BibTeX, so TI = title; T1 = title; T2 = title; and does a reverse > > dictionary lookup to find that title = (TI, T1, T2), and picks the > > first > > one. However, those are actually in random order, so the result > > varies > > wildly. > > > > What really needs to be done: > > > > 1) create a dictionary mapping BibTeX field->RIS tag > > Just added this one, so that should be better now. Though I'm not sure > I've done it right. > > PubMedTagsForBibTeXFieldNames = { > Abstract = AB; > Address = AD; > Annote = N1; > Author = AU; > Booktitle = BT; > Editor = ED; > Isbn = SN; > Journal = JO; > Keywords = KW; > Language = LA; > "Local-Url" = L1; > Medlineref = UI; > Pages = PG; > Title = TI; > Publisher = PB; > Status = PS; > Url = UR; > Volume = VL; > Year = PY; > }; I'm not sure either, but that will at least give consistent results :). Hopefully someone has the Copious Free Time to check against the spec. We have a mix of PubMed and RIS in the type dictionaries, unfortunately, and that adds some extra confusion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ Bibdesk-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
