Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> where possible to define citation keys. In some cases (dois, isbns,
> etc.) this is easier than others, but the pay-off will be large. If my
> citation key in the document is identified with "urn:isbn:32343545"
> it's trivial to grab the associate bib record from many sources. If
> it's some user-specific key ("smith99") or local database number, then
> stuff breaks.
You are certainly right with two caveats:
a) actually ISBN (as much as I would love to like it) is pretty poor,
because it is linked to the particular _edition_ to the book (and it is
even different between hardcover and paperback edition), not the book
itself. I am not interested that author had particular edition of "Practice
of the Presence of God" in his library, I want to have fixed reference to
the book itself. There are different ISBN-translators
(http://weblog.infoworld.com/udell/2003/11/13.html and for example
http://labs.oclc.org/xisbn/0883681056 ), but it is still clumsy.
b) actually, good old LCCN (BX2349 .H42) is much better, but probably too
Americo-centric and limited to the published books.
c) good standardized own system based on the unchanging characteristics of
book (like mentioned bibshare; it would need extension, but it is good
foundation) is actually quite good. Of course, you hit "standards are
great -- why not to create yet another one" problem, but still it is not
that hopeless as it looks like.
Best,
Matej
--
GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB 25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC
http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/blog/, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
23 Marion St. #3, (617) 876-1259, ICQ 132822213
<"}}}><
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
