Re: [dev-biblio] default db should be empty

[David Wilson]

Perhaps a compromise would be to have only one entry in the database, to show 
that it works and is easier (if you do not know the select delete record 
process) to remove.

Most mail apps came with a welcome mail message.

David 

On Thursday 26 October 2006 4:55 am, Matthias Basler wrote:
> Bruce wrote:
> > I have never come across any database application that prefills
> > content, unless perhaps it's generic content like country codes or
> > whatever in a relational db (not relevant here, because a flat db).
>
> My guess is these sample books exist mainly for a psychological reason:
> If there are books in the database then people know it is working. If,
> instead people visit the bibliographic database for the first time and just
> see an empty table and a lot(!) of empty fields below, this might be enough
> to drive some simple souls off saying "I dont' know where to start."
>
> > Moreover, I don't recall ever meeting anyone who actually uses the
> > existing bibliographic support.
>
> As you might remember I used it for my thesis, although not always in the
> way the designers of if intended it to be used. ;-)
-- 
---
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [dev-biblio] default db should be empty

[Matthias Steffens]

On 25-Oct-06 at 20:55 +0200 Matthias Basler wrote:

Bruce wrote:
> I have never come across any database application that prefills
> content, unless perhaps it's generic content like country codes
> or whatever in a relational db (not relevant here, because a
> flat db).
  My guess is these sample books exist mainly for a psychological
reason: If there are books in the database then people know it is
working. If, instead people visit the bibliographic database for
the first time and just see an empty table and a lot(!) of empty
fields below, this might be enough to drive some simple souls off
saying "I dont' know where to start."


Right, for exactly the same reasons, a fresh refbase installation
also comes with a handfull of prefilled records. They are also meant
to give users an easy way of playing around (without the need to
import data first) and they serve as showcase examples showing
features that may otherwise not be obvious. Some people will like
this, others won't. I guess that depends.

Matthias
_
Matthias Steffens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   http://www.extracts.de

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [dev-biblio] default db should be empty

[Matthias Basler]

Bruce wrote:
> I have never come across any database application that prefills 
> content, unless perhaps it's generic content like country codes or 
> whatever in a relational db (not relevant here, because a flat db).

My guess is these sample books exist mainly for a psychological reason:
If there are books in the database then people know it is working. If, instead 
people visit the bibliographic database for the first time and just see an 
empty table and a lot(!) of empty fields below, this might be enough to drive 
some simple souls off saying "I dont' know where to start."

> Moreover, I don't recall ever meeting anyone who actually uses the 
> existing bibliographic support.

As you might remember I used it for my thesis, although not always in the way 
the designers of if intended it to be used. ;-)
-- 
Matthias Basler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [dev-biblio] default db should be empty

[David Wilson]

On Tuesday 24 October 2006 3:10 am, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>  From Dan Chudnov (library hacker):
>
> 
>
> > Does anybody know why OpenOffice ships with a "bibliography database"
> > that's *already* filled out with a bunch of records? Do they assume we
> > all want to write papers about OpenOffice?
> >
> > And why, please tell me, do I have to delete each record individually,
> > no matter what UI/key combination I try?
> >
> > This doesn't make any sense. Am I missing something?
>
> Can we get these little details changed in an interim release (say
> 2.0.5?) before we do something more significant?
>
I will submit an issue to remove the content and also try to get some of the 
related bibliography database issues, like the 'too small field sizes' at 75 
or 50 characters fixed.  Also adding a unique index on the Identifier  to fix 
the problem of duplicated Identifiers. All these are simple config changes - 
no coding needed.

I tried before on the field sizes issue starting in  June 2003 and persisting 
to April this year.  See the entertaining discussion @ 
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=16268


David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic 
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[dev-biblio] default db should be empty

[Bruce D'Arcus]

From Dan Chudnov (library hacker):



Does anybody know why OpenOffice ships with a "bibliography database" 
that's *already* filled out with a bunch of records? Do they assume we 
all want to write papers about OpenOffice?


And why, please tell me, do I have to delete each record individually, 
no matter what UI/key combination I try?


This doesn't make any sense. Am I missing something?


Can we get these little details changed in an interim release (say 
2.0.5?) before we do something more significant?


Bruce

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]