Bruce, thanks for the detailed explanation and the examples!
On Thu, 6-Apr-2006 09:20 -0400, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > Let's imagine a document where only two article citations are added: > article X with a DOI, and article Y without. Your citation references > looks like this internally: > > <cite:biblioref key="info:doi/343243254456"/> > <cite:biblioref key="user:msteffens:doe99/> > > [note: actually, ideally for a web app, you'd have > "http://refbase.net/msteffens/doe99";] Yes, I agree. Also, this would store all required bits together: database URL, username, citekey. And it would make it unnecessary to globally specify a preferred database. Instead, this information would be specific to every reference, which, in turn, would allow you to use multiple databases or a distributed database system. > Scenario 1: single author, single database (you) > ================================================ > > You have some config option that says your preferred database. If > your embedded bibliography list needs to be regenerated, it asks > RefBase for those records (again). > > There is no difficulty at all because the database is the same. With your above example, this is only true if the username gets also transferred when querying the database for record X (which was keyed by DOI). Otherwise the database won't be able to find your own record. > Scenario 2: multiple authors, multiple databases > ================================================ > > User A adds the citations, and user B receives that document with the > embedded data. [...] > - "user:b:smith04" is added to local record as a possible id > for item X > - "info:doi/12345464565"is added to local record as a > possible id for item Y This is a crucial bit that wasn't clear to me before. If the user-specific as well as the generic information is added to the embedded metadata and IS actually used, when resolving references, both keying methods can be applied depending on the situation. This is what I'm asking for. > By specifying your preferred database(s), and always embedding the > bib data in the wrapper, you're insured of getting the correct > records and of having the logic there to resolve against different > databases. Yes. But this will only work if the user's username for the preferred database is stored as well - and if the user's records are updated with the generic identifiers where missing. So, in summary, if the user-specific access info is stored for every reference (and user) in the metadata, such as in: <http://refbase.net/msteffens/doe99> and if the user can ask OOo to prefer his own records whenever possible, than I'll be happy :-). And you're right that, if these conditions are met, I don't care how OOo handles it's record keying internally. Matthias --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
