Keywords

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Keywords

David Wilson-7
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 ?
--
-------------------
David N. Wilson
Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic
OpenOffice Project
http://bibliographic.openoffice.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Keywords

Peter Tandler
Hi all,

what about providing the option to easily browse existing
keywords while assigning them (in addition to the possibility to
define aliases which is necessary, I guess)?

I think it's necessary that each user / group / organization can
define an own set of categories. I doubt that a pre-defined set
of categories will be of much help, as different people surely
have different requirements. The categories you mentioned below
would be too broad for me (and our team here) and all papers I
have would go to "Computer Science" - which wouldn't help me. In
my database, e.g., I use categories of IT sub-disciplines, such
as CSCW, HCI, UbiComp (which I also use to find the print-outs of
the papers).

I think in citeulike it works quite well that you see the
existing tags and the tags others have assigned, so you can
always decide whether you need a new tag or an existing one will do.

Nevertheless, if you have a large number of articles, I guess you
would need some information retrieval technology in addition.

Cheers,
Peter


David Wilson wrote:

> 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 ?

--
------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Peter Tandler, Dipl.-Inform.
Senior Researcher
Cooperative Environments and E-Learning
Fraunhofer IPSI
Dolivostrasse 15, 64293 Darmstadt, Germany
Phone: +49 6151 869-863, Fax: +49 6151 869-963
E-mail: [hidden email]
http://www.ipsi.fraunhofer.de/~tandler
http://www.ipsi.fraunhofer.de/concert
------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Keywords

Bruce D'Arcus
On 6/13/06, Peter Tandler <[hidden email]> wrote:

> what about providing the option to easily browse existing
> keywords while assigning them (in addition to the possibility to
> define aliases which is necessary, I guess)?

Yeah, what I was thinking. Auto-complete can really help in this sort
of normalization.

Bruce

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]