On Wed, 5-Apr-2006 15:29 -0400, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> >>> Ideally, multiple identifiers would be stored and sent to the
> >>> bibliographic database which could then decide what to do.
> >>
> >> Yes, ideally. But I'm not sure how practical that is (to get
> >> implemented).
> >
> > The database would need to perform additional queries if the first
> > choice doesn't result in a single record being found. I think that
> > this is feasible though.
>
> I'm talking more at the document format level. The citation proposal
> only allows one key/id.
Does that mean that you can only specify one single identifier? Be it
ISBN, DOI, local record ID or user-specific cite key? You can't specify
multiple identifiers? This would mean that all our discussion is
meaningless, doesn't it?
> Allowing more complicated coding in an already complicated spec would
> no doubt be controversial for the TC, and for implementors. Moreover,
> it would treat citations as a special class of object, which would
> also probably be controversial.
I understand that. But the TC folks should also understand that the
entire bibliographic database will be completely useless, if people
can't link to their own records. This will be a major frustration.
Being modern and ideal is nice, but if it only suits 5% of the crowd,
something is wrong.
> > Sounds reasonable, but maybe it should read:
> >
> > "For identifying citations, prefer:"
> >
> > "Prefer" would indicate that both identifiers will be used but with
> > different priorities.
>
> Yes, absolutely. And come to think of it, there should be another
> config option for preferred sources, with optional user parameter(s).
Yes, personal info such as usernames may be different across the
various databases.
> As far as I can see, the ONLY reason to have a natural language key
> is because one doesn't have a universal identifier. Your concern is
> mostly about *where* you get your records from, not how you identify
> them (you want *your* records because you trust them).
Basically, yes. It's not only the source ("*where*") but I want
specifically my own records ("*your*"). So even within the same source,
I don't want the buggy & incomplete records of my colleague but my own
ones.
> So for me, I'd want a rule that says to use universal ids wherever
> possible, and to fallback to a label I provide where necessary.
I'd say it the other way 'round: prefer my own records wherever
possible but fallback to universal ids where necessary, e.g. if nothing
found or when collaborating with others.
> I'd also perhaps default to my database and user account, with
> options to ping other servers if data is missing.
Yes, exactly!
> Wouldn't that solve the problems with the best balance of concerns?
Yes.
Matthias
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
