I would like to know if commas serve any function in "Author, Date, Unique ID", or it would serve exactly the same purpose to modify the copy citation format from [Aduriz et al., 2006, #68434] to [Aduriz et al 2006 #68434].
Commas and periods as punctuation marks can be problematic. For example, when tagging files with the Copy citation in DevonThink there are instances in which these two commas will break the tag in three.
In case punctuation marks are necessary for Bookends to identify the three separate elemments, would it be the same to have them as [Aduriz et al - 2006 - 68434]?
Is there any reason for commas in Copy citation?
Re: Is there any reason for commas in Copy citation?
The commas are for human readability only. Spaces will suffice ( [Aduriz et al 2006 #68434] is fine). The # in front of the unique ID is necessary, as it identifies the following number as the unique id (as opposed to some other number such as a page).
Jon
Sonny Software
Jon
Sonny Software
Re: Is there any reason for commas in Copy citation?
Alright. Then, in Format Manager I have to create a new format containing a (author) d (date)... and I cannot find the Unique ID field. Please help.
As a side note, I understand "unique" and permanent are not the same. These IDs can be automatically modified by Bookends for a reference when imported into another database, and this is important because if this ID "is included in a temporary citation, any other text in the temporary citation will be ignored during the scan". Would it be more trustworthy in the long run the author + date with a modification letter (2001a, 2002b...), that is User1?
I wonder if Unique IDs are good for other uses. Bookends' user manual says they "can be used to cross-index filed copies of papers, manuscripts, or books". I don't understand this, and the term "cross-index" is not used anywhere else in the manual. Please clarify as well if whatever it means it applies only to Bookends' fields or also to files scanned by Bookends.
As a side note, I understand "unique" and permanent are not the same. These IDs can be automatically modified by Bookends for a reference when imported into another database, and this is important because if this ID "is included in a temporary citation, any other text in the temporary citation will be ignored during the scan". Would it be more trustworthy in the long run the author + date with a modification letter (2001a, 2002b...), that is User1?
I wonder if Unique IDs are good for other uses. Bookends' user manual says they "can be used to cross-index filed copies of papers, manuscripts, or books". I don't understand this, and the term "cross-index" is not used anywhere else in the manual. Please clarify as well if whatever it means it applies only to Bookends' fields or also to files scanned by Bookends.
Re: Is there any reason for commas in Copy citation?
Unique ID's are generate randomly, and are almost always unique within a database. Look in the the Special Characters popup menu in the format definition -- you'll see that @ represents the unique ID.
It is indeed permanent with one caveat -- if you merge two databases where the unique ID of a reference collides with another (rare, but can happen), the Bookends will generate a new unique ID.
The "cross-reference" references is quite old, and refers to those who keep a paper (folder) hardcopy of papers. Very 20th century.
Jon
Sonny Software
It is indeed permanent with one caveat -- if you merge two databases where the unique ID of a reference collides with another (rare, but can happen), the Bookends will generate a new unique ID.
The "cross-reference" references is quite old, and refers to those who keep a paper (folder) hardcopy of papers. Very 20th century.
Jon
Sonny Software
Re: Is there any reason for commas in Copy citation?
Thanks. I will opt for Bookends' user1 field, which is dedicated to the Bibtex key. I find this key both more clear and reliable long-term. That is if it is not in the format of author+year+letter for repeated year.
How can the BibTex key generator in Bookends be customized to output author+year+short title?
How can the BibTex key generator in Bookends be customized to output author+year+short title?
Re: Is there any reason for commas in Copy citation?
You mean the Key generator that creates the Key field automatically? If so, it's not customizable, you'd have to add the short title yourself.
Jon
Sonny Software
Jon
Sonny Software
Re: Is there any reason for commas in Copy citation?
Even if the format of the BibTex key generator for the User1 field remains not customisable by the user, I believe there is a strong point for it to automatically include the first word of the title in a key, as default or as a preference choice.
When one faces the sorts of unintuitive [Smith2006g] or long [Smith, Jones and Williams, 2006, #68424] as temporary keys, instead of the mnemonic [Smith 2006Method], temporary keys become a burden of guessing, writing and checking at work.
Given only the author and year, that is what I end up remembering after repetition, and there is not much to wonder why without even a hint for the titles I have a worse recollection of works. Instead "Author/Editor+Year+Title(1st-word/First-x-characters)" is a format which allows to have in mind the work I am referring to when quickly rephrasing a sentence in the writing stage. It is also the best way to avoid or to detect and correct a misplaced reference, and this does happen over long periods of time as a consequence of automatic or accidental modifications of keys. And a clear way to understand citations when the draft is co-authored or under review by a person different from the author.
I hope Bookends can reconsider the automation of these widely used formats, as automation is necessary for a bibliography app to keep keys consistent.
When one faces the sorts of unintuitive [Smith2006g] or long [Smith, Jones and Williams, 2006, #68424] as temporary keys, instead of the mnemonic [Smith 2006Method], temporary keys become a burden of guessing, writing and checking at work.
Given only the author and year, that is what I end up remembering after repetition, and there is not much to wonder why without even a hint for the titles I have a worse recollection of works. Instead "Author/Editor+Year+Title(1st-word/First-x-characters)" is a format which allows to have in mind the work I am referring to when quickly rephrasing a sentence in the writing stage. It is also the best way to avoid or to detect and correct a misplaced reference, and this does happen over long periods of time as a consequence of automatic or accidental modifications of keys. And a clear way to understand citations when the draft is co-authored or under review by a person different from the author.
I hope Bookends can reconsider the automation of these widely used formats, as automation is necessary for a bibliography app to keep keys consistent.