Re: dev Digest 13 Jun 2006 16:19:46 -0000 Issue 323

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: dev Digest 13 Jun 2006 16:19:46 -0000 Issue 323

Ryan Cragun
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
[hidden email]
www.genesoc.com


[hidden email] 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:
	[hidden email]

To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
	[hidden email]

To post to the list, e-mail:
	[hidden email]


----------------------------------------------------------------------
  



Subject:
Keywords
From:
David Wilson [hidden email]
Date:
Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:01:33 +1000
To:
[hidden email], [hidden email]
To:
[hidden email], [hidden email]

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 ?