Hi Bruce, no offense itended, I was just interested about the details. ;-)
On Wed, 5-Apr-2006 10:06 -0400, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > > Also, how do you account for duplicate database entries where only one > > of these duplicates is the user's desired record. In institutional > > databases, duplicate entries are not uncommon and their accuracy or > > quality may differ substantially. Thus, it *does* matter which of these > > copies you fetch. User-specific keys as well as local database numbers > > would solve this particular problem. > > Hold on now; the user *may* be important, but not the user-specific key. > > If I ping a server and give a list of isbns and dois and an optional > username, problem solved; no? Yes and no, It depends on the quality of the bibliographic data. If all of the duplicate records contain an ISBN or DOI, then I agree that the username is all what's needed. But very often, users are lazy and enter only the basic bibliographic fields. Or, the data were imported from legacy data (such as BibTeX records). This means that it is possible that none of the records in question feature any unique identifier. But often, a cite key is present. In this case, the username would not suffice while the cite key or a local database number would do. Please note that I'm not arguing against you here, I just know the (often frustrating) reality of dealing with an institutional literature database. At our institute, we have a lot entries that would fit the above scenario. Matthias --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
