On 4 Jan 2009, at 1:35 AM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote: > On Jan 4, 2009, at 12:31 AM, Christiaan Hofman wrote: > >> Ah, I was looking at another change. I thought this was about a >> recent >> change, this is a relatively old change. >> >> RIS is truly a mess, that's why the RIS parsers are a mess. > > That's a bit unfair, since RIS and MEDLINE actually are well > documented, public specifications. The main problems I've seen are > due to certain publishing cartels that ignore the specs and dump > random stuff in RIS fields. >
With"RIS" I mean "RIS in practice". Christiaan > MEDLINE should be more consistent than RIS, since NIH is the source > of the spec and the output. I wish I'd seen this a few years ago: > > http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/mms/medlineelements.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bibdesk-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
