Hello,
Thanks a lot for the introduction of the idea of metatype.
I’ve been waiting for years to find a bibliographic software that have such functionality.
I find it very useful for books and book chapters.
But the situation for which I would need it most in first place is for Book and Book Review (a review is usually in a Journal but can also be in a book of collected reviews).
I suppose it would be quite easy to apply the concept of metatype to the couple Book/Book Review.
Or even give the user the possibility to define his own metatypes.
It would be great.
Please let me know if I can expect such an improvement any time soon.
Thanks for your great support (I just found an answer to my "Can’t load FormatLib" problem).
Jules M.
Other metatypes
Re: Other metatypes
Hi,
I'm happy to consider other metatypes. I wanted to get the first one done -- it wasn't a trivial addition. If people would like others, please suggest them. I'll take Work Reviewed [Review] as the first suggestion. This will not distinguish between a review in a book vs in a journal, but with careful use of conditional groups (in the format), this may not be a problem.
It would be difficult to let users define their own metatypes. But if we stick with the relationships that Bookends offers, it shouldn't be terribly hard to add others.
Jon
Sonny Software
I'm happy to consider other metatypes. I wanted to get the first one done -- it wasn't a trivial addition. If people would like others, please suggest them. I'll take Work Reviewed [Review] as the first suggestion. This will not distinguish between a review in a book vs in a journal, but with careful use of conditional groups (in the format), this may not be a problem.
It would be difficult to let users define their own metatypes. But if we stick with the relationships that Bookends offers, it shouldn't be terribly hard to add others.
Jon
Sonny Software
Re: Other metatypes
Hi,
Thanks for your quick and encouraging answer.
By the way, the idea of metatypes suggested me that maybe an analogous concept of metafield could be the answer the the problem I have mentioned in former posts: the association of multiple cities to one publisher, distinguising this from having multiple publishers each with its own city. I imagine that a "metafield" could combine the content of the first line of the "Publisher field" with the first line of the "City" field (containing one or more cities separated with a determinate separator) and then so for the second line. In the format this "metafield" that could be called "Publisher and City" would be identified with a special abbreviation (different from those of the "Publisher" and "City" field). Such a concept was applied in the discontinued bibliographic software Papyrus (now freely available. I don’t know if the source code is available though).
Once again . Waiting for the Work Reviewed/Review metafield, mabybe in the next update?
Jules M.
Thanks for your quick and encouraging answer.
By the way, the idea of metatypes suggested me that maybe an analogous concept of metafield could be the answer the the problem I have mentioned in former posts: the association of multiple cities to one publisher, distinguising this from having multiple publishers each with its own city. I imagine that a "metafield" could combine the content of the first line of the "Publisher field" with the first line of the "City" field (containing one or more cities separated with a determinate separator) and then so for the second line. In the format this "metafield" that could be called "Publisher and City" would be identified with a special abbreviation (different from those of the "Publisher" and "City" field). Such a concept was applied in the discontinued bibliographic software Papyrus (now freely available. I don’t know if the source code is available though).
Once again . Waiting for the Work Reviewed/Review metafield, mabybe in the next update?
Jules M.
Re: Other metatypes
> I'll take Work Reviewed [Review] as the first suggestion.
Yes this would be very useful. Often for a book there will be between 1 and 6 reviews (in my case these are in journals) of interest.
I have vacillated between giving each review its own record, a clean approach but extra work linking them to book, or just the book record, and attaching the review PDFs to the book. The latter is sensible as I usually don't want to cite the reviews, but the problem that way is when review PDFs are attached the filenames automatically given to each review are the same, i.e. obviously the name of the reviewer and journal don't get included this way.
regards, John
Yes this would be very useful. Often for a book there will be between 1 and 6 reviews (in my case these are in journals) of interest.
I have vacillated between giving each review its own record, a clean approach but extra work linking them to book, or just the book record, and attaching the review PDFs to the book. The latter is sensible as I usually don't want to cite the reviews, but the problem that way is when review PDFs are attached the filenames automatically given to each review are the same, i.e. obviously the name of the reviewer and journal don't get included this way.
regards, John
John McKeown
Re: Other metatypes
Personally, I'd make each a separate record (you can use the Duplicate as Book Chapter command and then change the Type to Review. If you'd prefer to consolidate them in one reference, note that you can change the name that Bookends offers (in the Rename text field) manually.
Jon
Sonny Software
Jon
Sonny Software
Re: Other metatypes
In the next Bookends update metatypes will be based only on reference crosslinks, not reference Types. This means you can use any relationship, including ones you define, as the basis for a metatype.
Jon
Sonny Software
Jon
Sonny Software
Re: Other metatypes
Dear Jon,
I find the idea of metatypes ingenious. In its present realisation, one can use the metatypes only within in-text citations but not in the list of references (or have I misunderstood something?) What would be more helpful for my purposes would be a possibility of quoting "Chapter author, year" in the text and putting a both a referring reference "Chapter author: Chapter title, page numbers; –> Book author (year)" and a referred reference "Book author: Book title. Publisher: Place (year)" into the list of references. Is this possible?
Thanks a lot,
Hans-Reinhard
I find the idea of metatypes ingenious. In its present realisation, one can use the metatypes only within in-text citations but not in the list of references (or have I misunderstood something?) What would be more helpful for my purposes would be a possibility of quoting "Chapter author, year" in the text and putting a both a referring reference "Chapter author: Chapter title, page numbers; –> Book author (year)" and a referred reference "Book author: Book title. Publisher: Place (year)" into the list of references. Is this possible?
Thanks a lot,
Hans-Reinhard
Re: Other metatypes
Hi,
I got your email, too, but I'll answer here. You can use metatypes in the citation (footnote), bibliography, or both. Define the metatype in the main format if you want it used in the bib, the custom citation format if you want it used in citations, or both if you want them used in both places (and they of course can differ in their appearance). If you use a metatype and cite the chapter, the book will automatically be added to the bibliography (if not already there). If there are other references that refer to the chapter (or to which the chapter refers) that you want mentioned, you'll need to cite them explicitly. Note that you can put a reference in the bibliography but not in the text by preceding it with the exclamation point, as in {!Smith, 200}. Does that answer your question?
Jon
Sonny Software
I got your email, too, but I'll answer here. You can use metatypes in the citation (footnote), bibliography, or both. Define the metatype in the main format if you want it used in the bib, the custom citation format if you want it used in citations, or both if you want them used in both places (and they of course can differ in their appearance). If you use a metatype and cite the chapter, the book will automatically be added to the bibliography (if not already there). If there are other references that refer to the chapter (or to which the chapter refers) that you want mentioned, you'll need to cite them explicitly. Note that you can put a reference in the bibliography but not in the text by preceding it with the exclamation point, as in {!Smith, 200}. Does that answer your question?
Jon
Sonny Software
Re: Other metatypes
No. sorry. It still does not work. I have defined a type "book chapter" and I have defined a type "book chapter [book]". And I – may be wrongly – expected Bookends to use the "book chapter" formatting, when a book chapter has no link to a linked parent reference and to use the the "book chapter [book]" format when there is a linked book. But all my chapters are formatted as book chapters without metatype, and the parent book is not in the bib. Do I have to define different book chapter types for chapters with linked book refs and for chapters without?
Thanks in advance!
Hans-Reinhard
Thanks in advance!
Hans-Reinhard
Re: Other metatypes
Did you instruct the format to use the metatypes for all Book Chapters (the default is Never)? If you did and it's still not working, please follow this up off-forum with tech support.
Jon
Sonny Software
P.S. Please look at the images in the user guide -- it shows you just what you need to set.
Jon
Sonny Software
P.S. Please look at the images in the user guide -- it shows you just what you need to set.
Re: Other metatypes
Thanks a lot!!! for this. It will allow me to do what I have tried to do with various reference managers for 20 years.
I'm anxious to download this next bookends update.
Happy new year 2010. And congratulation for the good work and support.
I'm anxious to download this next bookends update.
Happy new year 2010. And congratulation for the good work and support.
Jon wrote:In the next Bookends update metatypes will be based only on reference crosslinks, not reference Types. This means you can use any relationship, including ones you define, as the basis for a metatype.
Jon
Sonny Software