Re: [dev-biblio] Re: document/collection types
Hi, on another note, I have some questions regarding the following scenario: Lets consider someone wants to review some movies (or some other AV-material). [e.g. Roger Ebert wants to write a new movie guide ;-) ] How does he cite the movies? Should a special Audio-Video category exist? As more content moves to the internet, as there are many shifts in existing technologies (mobile devices), shouldn't we look a little bit more open-minded to these changes. Is it worth trying to unify everything, or does is make sense to split things into the classical published media (virtually most bibliographies up to 2007 fits here), and newer technologies (well, probably most will fit someday in this category)? I still haven't read all the comments, so I need some time to think more thoroughly about the proposals. Maybe a last question (though I apologise if it sounds dumb): what is the primary purpose of this category? Because for citing purposes, I really need details like edited book vs one-author book, web-page vs other document, and so on. Maybe if this is stated clearly (I may have missed it, forgive me my ignorance), the solution will look more straightforward. Sincerely, Leonard -- Pt! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kanns mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] Re: document/collection types
Gannon Dick wrote: Had to put my 2 cents here ... Leonard, very good point but might it be better to use Evidence Basis (ala' Evidence Based Medicine, Evidence Based Health Care, Evidence Based Librarianship, etc.) as a Property of the resource no matter what form or source the resource takes ? ... Well, it actually boils down to a peer-reviewed article. If it was peer-reviewed, it is likely to be evidence based. If not, most likely it isn't solid evidence. A meta-analysis (of properly conducted studies) is the highest level of evidence. Then follows a properly conducted randomized trial and so on (see the Cohrane database). I have posted such a category tree on the OOo site some time ago, see http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Bib-Keywords (though I largely abandoned that issue due to limited time.) Sincerely, Leonard - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev-biblio] RE: document/collection types
Book # do we need a separate class for edited books? In years of using EndNote, I solved many problems by having two distinct types, Book and Edited Book (= Edited book of essays by multiple authors, not just a book with an editor). I don't now remember all the difficulties, only that before I had a clear distinction, life was difficult and afterwards life was good. I don't think the problems was limitations of EndNote. I think the basic semantic difference was that in one the author is primary. The book is presented with the author as the person primarily responsible. The book may have had an editor, translator, etc. but they are secondary. In the second, the editor is the primarily responsible person, even though there may be several authors. Maybe you can have just one category, but then you need a flag saying whether author or editor is primary. I vote for having two categories an Authored Book (maybe just called Book, but I think Authored Book is better) and an Edited Book, even though an Authored Book can have editors and an Edited Book can have authors. John - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
