On Sunday 22 May 2005 9:12 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thanks for posting this as it helps me understand why there was so
> little discussion of my architectural design process and why I need to
> do the conceptual design soon. The OOoBib GUI architectural document
> describes "document" as a fundamental object without any mention of the
> critical attribute "document type" because I did not plan to use
> "document type" as a user selection when setting up a document for
> bibliographic inserts.
>
> I went back and researched Open Office again to see where I had missed
> the list of types that David has in in email. Even after extensive
> research and using OO help, I still have not found that list. Where is
> it in the OpenOffice GUI?
The one I meant is in the Tools->Bibliographic Database panel and the
Insert->Indexes and Tables->Bibliographic Entry->From Document->New, the list
is is in the document Type pick list. (but I got it wrong - see next point)
My suggestion that in most Bibliographic applications ask you to select the
document type first does not really apply to the OOo application. The OOo
panel design does not give any sign that selecting the document type might
determine the bibliographic format of the data the user is entering.
In fact unless users manually set up custom definitions for the different
document types they are using it does not make any difference what they
select because the default definition for the bibliographic format for all
types is -
Shortname: Author, Title, Year
The Journal name is not even defined for the Journals type.
The bibliographic help (Creating) does give some advise -
3.Select From document content and click New.> The user does need to declare a
type for each
> bibliographic record, but that is a different list and a different use
> of type.
4.Type a name for the bibliography entry in the Short name box.
5.Select the publication source for the record in the Type box, and then add
additional information in the remaining boxes.
> The user does need to declare a type for each
> bibliographic record, but that is a different list and a different use
> of type.
This is the list I meant but I was lazy and extracted the type list from some
other OOo documentation at
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org/bib-dtd-bits.html
and the list presented to the user is different and more clear that the one I
extracted. I should have checked.
To set the record straight the list in 00o 1.1.4 is
Article, Book, Brochures, Conference Proceedings, Book excerpt, Book excerpt
with title, Conference Proceedings, Journal, Technical documentation,
Thesis, Miscellaneous, Dissertation, Conference Proceedings, Research
Proceedings, Unpublished Email, WWW document, User defined 1 to User Defined
5. (On my system 'Conference Proceedings' is listed three times !)
> There is also a "document type" defined by the .suffix for a
> file -- again, that is very different from what we are discussing.
>
> At this point, I believe a user needs to be able to use templates for
> various types of documents, but I have not connected the use of those
> with control of bibliographic insertions. Comments?
I suppose my suggestion was for us to consider or, re-consider, what
represents a 'Document Type' a "Published work on Paper" a "Book" or a
"privately reprinted book of Conferences Proceedings" ?
If we make the distinctions between document types too fine or too complex we
are asking the user to fully understand our 'type' system before they can
properly use our application.
>
> Martha
>
> > Subject:
> > Document type lists and document options
> > From:
> > David Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date:
> > Sun, 22 May 2005 11:23:45 +1000
> > To:
> > [email protected]
> >
> > To:
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >Some of the problems we have been dealing with the question of mapping the
> >‘standard’ document types to MODS and how to design a user interface to
> >collect reference data. I have thinking about how the other Bibliographic
> >applications use ‘standard’ document types and I think we should try a
> >different approach for our GUI. Or at least give the users an option to
> > use a different approach. So I offer these ideas for discussion.
> >
> >OpenOffice currently supports only the following types - article, book,
> >booklet, conference, custom1, custom2, custom3, custom4, custom5, email,
> >inbook, incollection, inproceedings, journal, manual, mastersthesis, misc,
> >phdthesis, proceedings, techreport, unpublished, www. This is similar to
> >Bibtex.
> >
> >Most of the bibliographic packages I have seen start with the process of
> >‘First select your document type, ..”. This implies that, before you
> > start, you fully understand the document types, what distinguishes them
> > and what the bibliographic formatting consequences are or selecting say
> > inbook, as against incollection. What is the difference in format between
> > a book and booklet reference ? If you have Honour’s dissertation is it
> > the same as
> >mastersthesis ?
> >
> >This process very confusing for a beginner and it still confuses me. Also,
> >this list presumes that the full range of bibliographic field selection
> > and ordering is defined by this list, but this is not the case. To
> > provide one example - If a work is a reprint version of an old well known
> > edition – the publication details of the original edition may need to
> > cited as well. I had several of this type in my thesis. If we supported
> > this option with the same approach, we would have make new types –
> > reprinted Books, reprinted Articles, reprinted Journals, reprinted
> > phdthesis etc.
> >
> >Also we do not want the situation where just because a user has entered
> > the original publication details that this appears automatically in the
> > bibliography. This should be a user option -
> >
> >‘Store original Publication details y/n’
> >‘Display original Publication details y/n’
> >
> >I suggest a more flexible approach to the user interface, which could
> > also support a wizard question walk though approach to properly define
> > the bibliographic attributes.
> >
> >Rather than have fixed GUI panel design for each of the supported document
> >types we have either only one (or several more general panels) with more
> >options. I know that this can result in very large and confusing forms.
> > But I envisage something flexible and dynamic.
> >
> >For example the Form could have Radio buttons -
> >
> >The work has -
> >Author(s) [_] (or is unknown) [_]
> >Editor(s) [_]
> >Compiler(s) [_]
> >Translator(s) [_]
> >
> >The Work is -
> >Part of series [_]
> >Part of a named edition [_]
> >A reprint [_]
> >Part of a collection with works by other authors [_]
> >
> >And the text entry fields (or a sub-form to collect names) would only
> > appear when the associated button was selected. (I have seen this in web
> > forms)
> >
> >I have not fully worked this out but the type of questions / options would
> >include the following -
> >
> >Physical character
> >Audio - talk, music, ...
> >Video - film, documentary ...
> >WWW pages
> >Paper - booklet , book, pamphlet, journal, newspaper, magazine, map, ...
> >
> >Authorship – The work has one or more authors? has Compiler(s) or
> > Editor(s) ? Is the work a translation ?
> >
> >Publisher – Publisher of this work, If it is a re-published (reprint) the
> >publication details of the original edition as well.
> >
> >UnPublished – The from in which the work has been referenced ie
> > (Photocopied)
> >
> >Collections - Does the work have sections with different authors?
> > (Collection title name, Editor(s) / Compiler(s), publisher, and / or
> > publishing agency, page range of section referred to.)
> >
> >Series – Is the work part of a series or collection ? Is the series well
> > known enough for the series name to be given prominence ? (There may be a
> > different field order if this is the case). (Series name, Editor(s)
> > publisher, and / or publishing agency)
> >
> >Named Edition – Is the work part of a Named Edition ? (Edition name)
> >
> >Conferences - If the work is an article, report or paper from a the
> > published proceedings of a conference, the conference details are needed
> > (conference title, place, date).
> >
> >Summary
> >
> >The point I am trying to get to is that the bibliography format should be
> >generated from the information that the user has provided about the work,
> >rather than from the user first have to make a selection from a document
> > type list that is difficulty to fully understand and does not satisfy all
> > the variation found. For exporting the data some program logic will have
> > to find a best fit to a document type list. But we should not force the
> > user to deal with this.
> >
> >There are many bibliographic details that can be collected when we look
> >through the style guides. We could collect a list of possible options and
> >work out how to best to present these to the users. We should think about
> > a new Bibliographic GUI paradigm for OpenOffice.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
