Hi... I've heard a lot of praise about Bookends and am interesting in trying it. I've been using EndNote for nearly 2 decades (wow)! But I'm frustrated by lack of development and corporate silences.
I have about 4 questions about making the move:
1. can you import / convert connection filters (z39), or use them directly?
2. can you impot / convert styles?
3. how do you convert existing (MS Word) documents?
4. does it have the same issues with embedded field codes and if so how is it handled?
5. is there a palm conduit, or is there a way to get references onto a palm?
#1 and #3 would be absolutely required for me to want to change over. Issue #5 would also be important but not necessarily a deal breaker; I'd hope for eventual (soonish) development of one though. Or interface with JFile or similar via something like PocketCites.
from endnote: connection filters, styles, palm sync
Re: from endnote: connection filters, styles, palm sync
Hi,Lobster wrote: 1. can you import / convert connection filters (z39), or use them directly?
No. Bookends has it's own connection files. It's pretty easy to modify an existing one (you need server ip address and database name, mostly). But you can't use EN connection files.
No. Answer is similar to the above.2. can you impot / convert styles?
All it takes is importing your refs into Bookends as XML files -- that way the record numbers are retained as unique id's. If you unformat your Word file (to remove hidden EN information) Bookends will usually find the citations with no trouble.3. how do you convert existing (MS Word) documents?
No, no issues like that. Bookends is a lot less reliant on VBA than EndNote.4. does it have the same issues with embedded field codes and if so how is it handled?
There is a third party product from Mootjelitt called JFile Companion that works with Bookends XML exports:5. is there a palm conduit, or is there a way to get references onto a palm?
http://www.mootjelitt.com/jfc/index.html
You can contact the author, who is very responsive and frequents this forum.
Sorry, #1 isn't going to happen.#1 and #3 would be absolutely required for me to want to change over.
Jon
Sonny Software
thanks for the quick response.
with regards to #1, I just noticed form admittedly a quick look that the connection possibilities were very limited. I suppose I can try to see if I can get it to work with the institutions I use, which are not included.
with regards to #3, I wasn't talking about converting endnote libraries, I was talking about the MS Word documents themselves with embedded endnote citaitons. I believe that if I unformat a word document I'll still get something like {author, title #ID}. What would bookends do with that?
with regards to #5, I'll investigate. An actual record-by-record synching conduit would be lovely. any plans for anything of the sort?
sorry for the relative ignorance here, not RTMF, and not really giving the product a whirl yet. I just want to make sure that if I invest the effort it's not going to be a huge amount of trouble.
PS: One more thing: I also noticed there's no call number field? is that correct?
with regards to #1, I just noticed form admittedly a quick look that the connection possibilities were very limited. I suppose I can try to see if I can get it to work with the institutions I use, which are not included.
with regards to #3, I wasn't talking about converting endnote libraries, I was talking about the MS Word documents themselves with embedded endnote citaitons. I believe that if I unformat a word document I'll still get something like {author, title #ID}. What would bookends do with that?
with regards to #5, I'll investigate. An actual record-by-record synching conduit would be lovely. any plans for anything of the sort?
sorry for the relative ignorance here, not RTMF, and not really giving the product a whirl yet. I just want to make sure that if I invest the effort it's not going to be a huge amount of trouble.
PS: One more thing: I also noticed there's no call number field? is that correct?
They are actually pretty extensive -- there are 175 in the Import Filters folder we distribute. Make sure you look at the Import Filters Manager (File menu) to see them all. Only the ones that are checked show up in the import pop-up menus.Lobster wrote:with regards to #1, I just noticed form admittedly a quick look that the connection possibilities were very limited. I suppose I can try to see if I can get it to work with the institutions I use, which are not included.
So was I. I mentioned you must unformat the document. Bookends will then find the right reference (probably) when it encounters {author, title #ID} and replace it with the proper final citation. Try it yourself and see. The demo is fully functional, just limited to 50 references. Remember, export/import XML so that EN record numbers become Bookends unique id's.with regards to #3, I wasn't talking about converting endnote libraries, I was talking about the MS Word documents themselves with embedded endnote citaitons. I believe that if I unformat a word document I'll still get something like {author, title #ID}. What would bookends do with that?
Not from us. But the JFile companion author might, and we have worked with him before. As I said, you can contact him if you are really interested. He is very helpful.with regards to #5, I'll investigate. An actual record-by-record synching conduit would be lovely. any plans for anything of the sort?
Understood.sorry for the relative ignorance here, not RTMF, and not really giving the product a whirl yet. I just want to make sure that if I invest the effort it's not going to be a huge amount of trouble.
That's correct. We do have an isbn field, but nothing for call numbers. You can reassign one of the others if you want, or put the call number into a scrolling field, like Notes. There was a thread not too long ago with a some of people who found the number of fields in Bookends limiting. It's possible you fall into that category.PS: One more thing: I also noticed there's no call number field? is that correct?
Jon
Sonny Software
Thanks, Lobster and Jon, for a useful discussion.
I am moving my word documents from a PC to a Mac. On the Mac I'm using Word 2004. I do have Endnote 9.0 (Mac), but would like a more nimble bibliographic tool. The difficulty I'm having with the Bookend 8 demo is backward compatibility of my documents. Endnote appears to have no problem with my test document (does with the 38 page doc from which the 4 page test was extracted).
In your discussion:
[quote]
Quote:
with regards to #3, I wasn't talking about converting endnote libraries, I was talking about the MS Word documents themselves with embedded endnote citaitons. I believe that if I unformat a word document I'll still get something like {author, title #ID}. What would bookends do with that?
So was I. I mentioned you must unformat the document. Bookends will then find the right reference (probably) when it encounters {author, title #ID} and replace it with the proper final citation. Try it yourself and see. The demo is fully functional, just limited to 50 references. Remember, export/import XML so that EN record numbers become Bookends unique id's.
[quote]
I've made a test Bookend library (using the export/import XML instructions). I unformatted my test document (using Endnote; other trials I used Endnote, Bookends or both). This isn't working.
Bookends scans the document, changes the {} to (), but is unable to match the temporary citations generated by endnote. For example:
{Lloyd, 1999 #1457}
The unmatched citations list from Bookends shows the mismatch as
Lloyd 1999 1457
If I drag the citatiion above (and others) from the Bookend library list view into the document, or if I type {Lloyd}, a bibliography with just those citations is built.
I infer that I'm still missing an important step, or that I don't have backward compatibility and will have to reenter temporary citations for all my documents. I really rather not; can you give me a hand here?
Thanks, Linn
I am moving my word documents from a PC to a Mac. On the Mac I'm using Word 2004. I do have Endnote 9.0 (Mac), but would like a more nimble bibliographic tool. The difficulty I'm having with the Bookend 8 demo is backward compatibility of my documents. Endnote appears to have no problem with my test document (does with the 38 page doc from which the 4 page test was extracted).
In your discussion:
[quote]
Quote:
with regards to #3, I wasn't talking about converting endnote libraries, I was talking about the MS Word documents themselves with embedded endnote citaitons. I believe that if I unformat a word document I'll still get something like {author, title #ID}. What would bookends do with that?
So was I. I mentioned you must unformat the document. Bookends will then find the right reference (probably) when it encounters {author, title #ID} and replace it with the proper final citation. Try it yourself and see. The demo is fully functional, just limited to 50 references. Remember, export/import XML so that EN record numbers become Bookends unique id's.
[quote]
I've made a test Bookend library (using the export/import XML instructions). I unformatted my test document (using Endnote; other trials I used Endnote, Bookends or both). This isn't working.
Bookends scans the document, changes the {} to (), but is unable to match the temporary citations generated by endnote. For example:
{Lloyd, 1999 #1457}
The unmatched citations list from Bookends shows the mismatch as
Lloyd 1999 1457
If I drag the citatiion above (and others) from the Bookend library list view into the document, or if I type {Lloyd}, a bibliography with just those citations is built.
I infer that I'm still missing an important step, or that I don't have backward compatibility and will have to reenter temporary citations for all my documents. I really rather not; can you give me a hand here?
Thanks, Linn
Check to see if the unique ID in Bookends for the Lloyd 1999 reference is correct -- it should be 1457. If it is not, you won't get a match.Linn wrote:Bookends scans the document, changes the {} to (), but is unable to match the temporary citations generated by endnote. For example:
{Lloyd, 1999 #1457}
The unmatched citations list from Bookends shows the mismatch as
Lloyd 1999 1457
It *should* be 1457 if you imported as XML *unless* that unique ID was already in use. In that case it will be 1458 (assuming that was not in use).
Jon
Sonny Software
For those following this, Linn sent me the document and the XML output. As I suggested above, the unique ID did *not* match that in the document. That's why the scan didn't find Lloyd 1999 #1457.
I don't know why that was in the document (maybe it was inserted by someone else with this reference in a different library, so the record number was different). Linn, check the EN library to see what the record number was for this reference.
If you change #1457 to #4 (which is the unique id in Bookends -- it was the record number exported by EN to the XML file) the scan should now find it.
Jon
Sonny Software
I don't know why that was in the document (maybe it was inserted by someone else with this reference in a different library, so the record number was different). Linn, check the EN library to see what the record number was for this reference.
If you change #1457 to #4 (which is the unique id in Bookends -- it was the record number exported by EN to the XML file) the scan should now find it.
Jon
Sonny Software
Jon,
of course, I didn't think of that. thank you very much. In my EN library, Lloyd is 1457. I incorrectly assumed that my EN id#s would be carried throughout. However, my BE test database was exported into xml from an EN traveling library of a test document. I imported the xml into a BE test library. The EN traveling library renumbers beginning from #1--so the ids didn't match. I made a second BE test library by exporting Lloyd and a few other references directly from my EN main library into an xml file. Those id numbers were preserved and BE correctly formatted those temporary citations from the original EN id numbers into my test document.
Excellent!
Let me just check one thing. My current EndNote Library has about 2500 references. I assume that, after buying BookEnds, I can export the entire library in xml format, create a new BE library, and import the recently made xml file--i.e., just drop the file onto the new library window. The EN ids in my existing library will then become the BE ids in the new BE library. I'll then be able to scan any unformatted Word document with EN temporary citations. Is this correct? Are there size limitations or instabilities that I should be aware of?
One other question. Suppose that I have a document that is already formatted with EN. Can BookEnds unformat the file, or do I need to keep Endnotes on hand to do those unformatting jobs?
Thanks again for your help,
Linn
of course, I didn't think of that. thank you very much. In my EN library, Lloyd is 1457. I incorrectly assumed that my EN id#s would be carried throughout. However, my BE test database was exported into xml from an EN traveling library of a test document. I imported the xml into a BE test library. The EN traveling library renumbers beginning from #1--so the ids didn't match. I made a second BE test library by exporting Lloyd and a few other references directly from my EN main library into an xml file. Those id numbers were preserved and BE correctly formatted those temporary citations from the original EN id numbers into my test document.
Excellent!
Let me just check one thing. My current EndNote Library has about 2500 references. I assume that, after buying BookEnds, I can export the entire library in xml format, create a new BE library, and import the recently made xml file--i.e., just drop the file onto the new library window. The EN ids in my existing library will then become the BE ids in the new BE library. I'll then be able to scan any unformatted Word document with EN temporary citations. Is this correct? Are there size limitations or instabilities that I should be aware of?
One other question. Suppose that I have a document that is already formatted with EN. Can BookEnds unformat the file, or do I need to keep Endnotes on hand to do those unformatting jobs?
Thanks again for your help,
Linn
Yes (some citations may need tweaking, but probably few if any).Linn wrote:Let me just check one thing. My current EndNote Library has about 2500 references. I assume that, after buying BookEnds, I can export the entire library in xml format, create a new BE library, and import the recently made xml file--i.e., just drop the file onto the new library window. The EN ids in my existing library will then become the BE ids in the new BE library. I'll then be able to scan any unformatted Word document with EN temporary citations. Is this correct?
In theory, no. In practice, yes. Bookends will handle a database with 10,000 references or so quite nicely. Between 10-20K you will probably notice some things are a bit slower. I probably wouldn't try to use a database with more than 50K references (you can have multiple db's, of course).Are there size limitations or instabilities that I should be aware of?
Increasing database cache (Preferences) will definitely improve performance for large databases. For example, I have a db with 5000+ refs and I find a db cache of 12 MB does nicely.
As for instabilities, there are no reproducible bugs I'm aware of at this time. Having said that, it is important that you do keep decent backups. We have a repair and a rebuild function, and they can recover 99% of databases that develop some sort of corruption. But there is that 1% they can't fix. Bookends has a backup option in the File menu.
You need EN for that. Bookends won't touch embedded EN information.One other question. Suppose that I have a document that is already formatted with EN. Can BookEnds unformat the file, or do I need to keep Endnotes on hand to do those unformatting jobs?
Jon
Sonny Software
Thanks everyone. This thread is already going ahead of what I'm able to investigate right now. So I'll be sure to follow it further as I experiment here.Jon wrote:That's correct. We do have an isbn field, but nothing for call numbers. You can reassign one of the others if you want, or put the call number into a scrolling field, like Notes. There was a thread not too long ago with a some of people who found the number of fields in Bookends limiting. It's possible you fall into that category.
But for now, I am concerned about the lack of a call number field. It's an acceptable but not very elegant work around to reassign a user field for call numbers.
But how do i import that information from my endnote library properly? I don't see any options for field matching in the import --> endnote xml route.
If it's not possible to retain that I'm afraid to say it would prevent me from switching right there-- I need that info to put on my Palm to be able to go to the shelves and grab the books I need. I use endnote libraries for this purpose -- search with z39, sync to palm, and then go grab books from the stacks.
But that's what the user-defined fields are for -- any field we didn't include that you want. In reality, all fields are user-defined (in Preferences), although some are smart enough to know their intended purpose (like Authors, Editors, Volume, Pages, etc.).Lobster wrote: But for now, I am concerned about the lack of a call number field. It's an acceptable but not very elegant work around to reassign a user field for call numbers.
Bookends will import the call number in XML files to Notes. If that is the only item you have in Notes, you could do a Global Change -> Move in Bookends after the import.But how do i import that information from my endnote library properly? I don't see any options for field matching in the import --> endnote xml route.
Alternatively, you can use Refer to export/import to Bookends. Then you can send the field whereever you want. You lose, however, any styled text, and the Bookends unique ID's will not correspond to the EN record number.
It can be retained, as above, but with the stated limitations. I have to say, if that's your main use for EN, why not stick with it? Version 9 is supposed to have finally fixed most of the bugs.If it's not possible to retain that I'm afraid to say it would prevent me from switching right there-- I need that info to put on my Palm to be able to go to the shelves and grab the books I need.
Jon
Sonny Software
Then what happens if you have both Notes and Call numbers? which would be prioritized? or would call number get tacked on to the end of notes?
As far as refer format -- that doesn't seem like it would because (I think) I would need the unique ID to match with the existing documents with EndNote citations?
As far as refer format -- that doesn't seem like it would because (I think) I would need the unique ID to match with the existing documents with EndNote citations?
Well, good question. That is certainly not my MAIN use for EndNote but it is on thing I use EndNote for. BookEnds has a nicer interface from what I can tell; I don't like the heavy reliance on field codes and needing to remember to strip field codes before sending documents to anyone else, your support is clearly much better, as this forum shows, and EndNote is extremely slow to respond to any user requests. I remember well before version 8 was released I complained about the ugly Word tool bar icons, and it took unti version 9 (over a year later) for them to get redesigned. It also took years for them to come up with a palm conduit, and then it was highly limited (no multiple databses, limited field support, needing to have endnote open for the conduit to work without crashing, etc), and none of that has been fixed in version 9 either. So in short its largely a question of development pace; I have a lot more confidence that BookEnds will respond to user requests in much shorter time than EndNote.Jon wrote:It can be retained, as above, but with the stated limitations. I have to say, if that's your main use for EN, why not stick with it? Version 9 is supposed to have finally fixed most of the bugs.
Notes is a scrolling field. The call number would just appear on a separate line. Whether it is at the beginning or the end would depend on their order in the XML file (if call number is first, it goes at the top).Lobster wrote:Then what happens if you have both Notes and Call numbers? which would be prioritized? or would call number get tacked on to the end of notes?
True. But that would presumably soon become moot as one moved on to writing new manuscripts with Bookends. Of course, if it's a long book...Lobster wrote:As far as refer format -- that doesn't seem like it would because (I think) I would need the unique ID to match with the existing documents with EndNote citations?
Yes, well there is that.So in short its largely a question of development pace; I have a lot more confidence that BookEnds will respond to user requests in much shorter time than EndNote.
Jon
Sonny Software
Jon,
Thanks for your response and good advice about the cache. And I will keep EN (sigh).
Lobster's queries, which I've found very helpful, also led me to reflect a bit on my research experiences. Like many people in this group and others, I'm in the perenial search for the perfect bibliography-notes-data tools. I've found that technologies can be as much a bottleneck as brain bandwidth. Separating the wheat from the chaff at the front end of the process has worked very well for me.
I keep potential references on lined yellow paper pads with the absolute minimal info to find an item. I look up call numbers electronically, but just write them on my pad. When I go to the library, I look at what surrounds my items, scan bookshelves, book indices and references, journals, authors, etc. to get a sense of the themes, important authors, and disciplinary space and make little notes about usefulness next to the call # on the yellow paper. Sometimes I'm inspired to write a paragraph or two of useable writing. I save pads, but very rarely ever look at them again. In the library, I'll also xerox book pages, articles or other relevant stuff. Once in a while I'll download what I find in electronic databases, but always put them in a separate library. The only things that go into my main database are items that I use or am highly likely to use, and I'm very particular and rigorous about consistency in entering my data. One way or another, this sifting work has to be done, and I've found that quite a bit of this can happen at the front end just on the basis of, "<raspberry noise>" "bingo!" and "dunno?."
Years ago, and somewhat discouraged about how much junk I was collecting electronically, at some nontrivial level of effort, I started asking colleagues in other disciplines about how much trash gets published in their fields. Across all of them (sciences, engineering, humanities), everyone said about 80-90%. I felt much less discouraged, and went back to yellow pads, and no regrets since.
This is my experience, and of course, all brains are different, but once in a while a vicarious experience can be worth a "hmm" even if it's not actually useful.
Linn
NRN
Thanks for your response and good advice about the cache. And I will keep EN (sigh).
Lobster's queries, which I've found very helpful, also led me to reflect a bit on my research experiences. Like many people in this group and others, I'm in the perenial search for the perfect bibliography-notes-data tools. I've found that technologies can be as much a bottleneck as brain bandwidth. Separating the wheat from the chaff at the front end of the process has worked very well for me.
I keep potential references on lined yellow paper pads with the absolute minimal info to find an item. I look up call numbers electronically, but just write them on my pad. When I go to the library, I look at what surrounds my items, scan bookshelves, book indices and references, journals, authors, etc. to get a sense of the themes, important authors, and disciplinary space and make little notes about usefulness next to the call # on the yellow paper. Sometimes I'm inspired to write a paragraph or two of useable writing. I save pads, but very rarely ever look at them again. In the library, I'll also xerox book pages, articles or other relevant stuff. Once in a while I'll download what I find in electronic databases, but always put them in a separate library. The only things that go into my main database are items that I use or am highly likely to use, and I'm very particular and rigorous about consistency in entering my data. One way or another, this sifting work has to be done, and I've found that quite a bit of this can happen at the front end just on the basis of, "<raspberry noise>" "bingo!" and "dunno?."
Years ago, and somewhat discouraged about how much junk I was collecting electronically, at some nontrivial level of effort, I started asking colleagues in other disciplines about how much trash gets published in their fields. Across all of them (sciences, engineering, humanities), everyone said about 80-90%. I felt much less discouraged, and went back to yellow pads, and no regrets since.
This is my experience, and of course, all brains are different, but once in a while a vicarious experience can be worth a "hmm" even if it's not actually useful.
Linn
NRN
again on call numbers and research habits
jonny,
yes i'm working on a book, so yes, the old record #s i think would be important to preserve.
linn,
actually, your experiences looking up books are not so different than mine here. but it gave me an idea for how good biblio software could really help us both and probably many others.
what i do is as described above in terms of going to the library, with a little database of citations i want to look up on my palm, with records that include the call number.
if i'm at the library to pick up more than 2 or 3 books, when I get there I end up jotting down the call numbers on a piece of paper along with as you say minimal info. i do it in a quasi-sorted table, with the call numbers on the left and just some really brief info next to it -- only enough to identify.
I sort the call numbers as I go, and often sort of don't leave space. the idea is to group them by physical location in the library so i am not running from side to side and floor to floor.
Of course once actually in the stacks I probably will grab more than what I came in for initially. (and those, if useful and I check them out, will eventually wind up in a(n endnote) database.
So how could SW help? If it had a call # field, it could easily have a menu command to print selected citations sorted by call number. or that could just be a style, I think. hmm... now i wonder whether endnote, having a call number field, couldn't do this already if i made a style for it .... but it would be nicer yet as a proper table, perhaps with definable groups of call-numbers-by-floor for different frequented libraries, accessable with a single print command. better get moving jon
oh and speaking of handheld devices... most libraries have wireless internet -- what if there were a good palm os client app that would not only sync your libraries but have a built-in z39 interface, and you could add internet matches to your list in the library? what if you could generate such a table as a check list on your palm, like a shopping list, and check them off as you find them. now that gives me an idea for export to handyshopper....
yes i'm working on a book, so yes, the old record #s i think would be important to preserve.
linn,
actually, your experiences looking up books are not so different than mine here. but it gave me an idea for how good biblio software could really help us both and probably many others.
what i do is as described above in terms of going to the library, with a little database of citations i want to look up on my palm, with records that include the call number.
if i'm at the library to pick up more than 2 or 3 books, when I get there I end up jotting down the call numbers on a piece of paper along with as you say minimal info. i do it in a quasi-sorted table, with the call numbers on the left and just some really brief info next to it -- only enough to identify.
I sort the call numbers as I go, and often sort of don't leave space. the idea is to group them by physical location in the library so i am not running from side to side and floor to floor.
Of course once actually in the stacks I probably will grab more than what I came in for initially. (and those, if useful and I check them out, will eventually wind up in a(n endnote) database.
So how could SW help? If it had a call # field, it could easily have a menu command to print selected citations sorted by call number. or that could just be a style, I think. hmm... now i wonder whether endnote, having a call number field, couldn't do this already if i made a style for it .... but it would be nicer yet as a proper table, perhaps with definable groups of call-numbers-by-floor for different frequented libraries, accessable with a single print command. better get moving jon
oh and speaking of handheld devices... most libraries have wireless internet -- what if there were a good palm os client app that would not only sync your libraries but have a built-in z39 interface, and you could add internet matches to your list in the library? what if you could generate such a table as a check list on your palm, like a shopping list, and check them off as you find them. now that gives me an idea for export to handyshopper....