I'm not an expert on this or anything, but given my experience with
bibliography software, it seems that discoleo is combining two or three
elements of the software I have typically used. The first is the
reference type. For instance, a reference may be to a journal article,
conference proceedings, a website, or a book. Each of those references
requires different fields. Thus, when you go to enter the reference
information you choose the reference type and the respective fields
come up for data entry. In discoleo's post he refers to a few that
would fall in these areas: review, case report, image. Each of these
would require specific fields that the others may not require.
The second element of discoleo's comment can be captured by two
features in ProCite or EndNote. You could either use the "group"
feature, which can be used to assign articles to different groups.
Using that approach, discoleo could group articles by "basic research"
or "theoretical research." Alternatively, and this is the point David
seems to be making, grouping could be done by "keywords." In this
instance, having a field called keywords would allow discoleo to put
"theoretical research" in that field for some references and "basic
research" in that field for others. A quick search on the keywords
field would pop up the corresponding references.
In short, I agree with David that an additional field for categories,
especially discipline specific categories, is not really necessary.
For instance, my bibliography database (managed in ProCite) has the
following groups set up given my research interests: "religious
exiting," "general religiosity studies," "Mormonism related studies,"
etc. 99.999% of researchers are not going to want those categories in
their bibliographic software. Allowing people to enter specific types
of references then group those references according to their personal
organization scheme would solve most of the problem; keywords would
solve the rest.
Anyway, my two bits...
Best,
Ryan Cragun
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.genesoc.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
dev Digest 13 Jun 2006 16:19:46 -0000 Issue 323
Topics (messages 1766 through 1766):
Keywords
1766 by: David Wilson
Administrivia:
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
dev@bibliographic.openoffice.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
discoleo has submitted an interesting enhancement request. I created a wiki
page http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Bib-Keywords to discuss such
issues.
===============
discoleo wrote ---
One way to better sort articles is based on Keywords. However, there is
another way I will shortly describe here.
There are a number of categories a research paper can belong to:
* Basic Research
* Theoretical Research (especially in Math/Physics)
*Trials:
**randomized controlled trial
**Meta-analysis
**other trial
*Review
*Guideline
*Correspondence
*Editorial
*Epidemiologic Study
*Case Report
*Images in clinical medicine (some Journals have such a feature/ could be a
subgroup of Case Report)
*Questions/ Question-Answers
If there are other relevant categories, feel free to implement them as well.
This is especially useful when searching for all trials on a given matter
(e.g. for writing a meta-analysis or writing a review or a guideline), or for
a specific case report.
I do have some >2500 of articles saved on my computer and searching for the
correct file is a nightmare. It may seem that 2500 articles is a huge number,
however in infections diseases this is only a minimum to start with.
It is useful to have a field storing this information. Although custom fields
exist, this is a feature that should be standard. It allows searching (and
grouping) articles on a more powerful basis.
Submitted as issue number 66353 by discoleo at Openoffice.org.
==============
Implementation comment by dnw
==============
How should this be implemented ? Most bib and document systems I have seem to
think that adding a field for keywords is enough and let the user the invent
their own categories. I have been involved in IT development and document
management systems and have had enough lectures from librarians (ie
professional indexers) to know that this just leads to a big unmanageable
mess, which librarians are often called in to try to fix. Once you have a
categorical mess it is generally hopeless.
Also a good keyword system has a good set of aliases defined. One insurance
company was providing different compensation for fractured limbs than for
broken limbs, because their compensation history search system did not have
these aliases defined. The cases and the compensation history diverged as
each of the staff used their preferred term.
So --- Should we build pre-defined document category sets that a user could
select one for each document collection. i.e. Medical Research, Physical
Sciences, Social Sciences etc ?
|
