bizarre source fields pt 2

A place for users to ask each other questions, make suggestions, and discuss Bookends.
Post Reply
enkidu

bizarre source fields pt 2

Post by enkidu »

I think that I'm going to have to keep doing this one manually, but I'd appreciate any suggestions on how to create a source filter for a field like this:

TITLE: "What Do the Expressions of the Passions Tell Us?" in Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy, Volume 1, Garber, Daniel (ed), 45-66

(Keep in mind that articles in journals, or books, would just have the regular title in this field.)

Ugh.

Thanks
Jon
Site Admin
Posts: 10066
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 6:27 pm
Location: Bethesda, MD
Contact:

Post by Jon »

Variations between output in a text file are a problem.

One suggestion is to segregate the kinds of references you want to import by Type (books, articles, etc.).

Then make a different filter for each Type. In the example you gave, I can see how you could parse it with a Source field.

Alternatively, you could edit the file you want to import and change TITLE to TITLE1 (or whatever) and have the 2nd Source parser in your filter deal with TITLE1 fields.

Not a great solution, but it might help.

Jon
Sonny Software
enkidu

Post by enkidu »

Just out of curiousity, how would I parse it as a source field? I have trouble with the Volume 1 part - what do I do with books that aren't multi-volume, since presumably they will have one less entry in this field? Since everything is separated by commas, there isn't any kind of syntactic clue either.
Admittedly, this isn't really your problem, this is a @#$%ing stupid way to organize a database on their part. But if you can figure out a way around it I'll praise your name to the skies.
Jon
Site Admin
Posts: 10066
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 6:27 pm
Location: Bethesda, MD
Contact:

Post by Jon »

enkidu wrote:Admittedly, this isn't really your problem, this is a @#$%ing stupid way to organize a database on their part. But if you can figure out a way around it I'll praise your name to the skies.
And I'd deserve it! :-)

No, you are right, there must be consistency in the text pattern. If a missing "field" is at the end, that's OK. But if it is in the middle somewhere in one reference and missing in another, the import will be "off" by one field in the second case.

Jon
Sonny Software
Enkidu
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 11:55 am

Post by Enkidu »

Jon wrote:
enkidu wrote:Admittedly, this isn't really your problem, this is a @#$%ing stupid way to organize a database on their part. But if you can figure out a way around it I'll praise your name to the skies.
And I'd deserve it! :-)

Do you think, then, that you could incorporate a fully-functional AI component into the next version of Bookends that was able to deal with fields like this? If it could pass the Turing test I'd be willing to pay the 20 dollar upgrade cost for sure! Hell, if it could not only organize my papers' bibliographies, but write the papers as well, I'd be willing to go as high as 30. :lol:
Jon
Site Admin
Posts: 10066
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 6:27 pm
Location: Bethesda, MD
Contact:

Post by Jon »

No, the feature set for Bookends 8 is set. Furthermore, throwing more source fields at it isn't an elegant way of solving the problem at all. It would require almost a complete redesign of the importer, and add quite a lot of complexity (one of the reasons people like Bookends over EndNote is because it is so much simpler to create/edit import filters and styles -- avoiding application bloat is important).

The solution now is to segregate the types of references you are trying to import and use a different filter for each.

If you want to pursue this further, perhaps you should contact us directly (support@sonnysoftware.com) with examples of the different files you are trying to import.

Jon
Sonny Software
Post Reply