This is not really a comment but i just wonder: does anybody here use Scribe, the note-taking software of the Center for history and New Media?
It has the advantage that one can link multiple records (whether a note card or document) to a source (or reference in BE speak, like book or article). The disadvantage is that one has to input the references first. Since it is not bibliographic software proper (they try to be but in an extremely basic way) that basically means that one ends up doing the same thing twice: inputting data in BE for ref management and citation purposes, inputting in Scribe to create a note database linked to the refs.
It has always seemed to me that a perfect tool for scholars would be a full-fledged reference management like BE that also can be used for note-taking in the way Scribe does: that is, being able to link several records to one reference.
Well, long story.. I simply wonder how people here deal with the issue of note taking and combine BE with other software for note-taking purposes?
Sorry if this is not really a proper forum topic but it seemed a good place to ask.
Best,
Gerben
BE and note taking software (Scribe)
Gerben,
I have the same problem. I tried scribe once and ended up with the same problem of having to input things twice. I'm currently writing my notes on bookends but once I start working on my thesis I'll probably need to use something else - something that allows me to have multiple notes per reference but also sort things by subject or subtheme. I'm still on the lookout for the proper tool. At first I thought I would just make something on Filemaker Pro since I find scribe a bit too slow and cumbersome. Maybe I should try Devonthink.
Alexandra
I have the same problem. I tried scribe once and ended up with the same problem of having to input things twice. I'm currently writing my notes on bookends but once I start working on my thesis I'll probably need to use something else - something that allows me to have multiple notes per reference but also sort things by subject or subtheme. I'm still on the lookout for the proper tool. At first I thought I would just make something on Filemaker Pro since I find scribe a bit too slow and cumbersome. Maybe I should try Devonthink.
Alexandra
Not sure i Devonthink is so suitable for this type of notetaking but i might give it a try.
"Multiple notes per reference" is exactly the point: in addition to Scribe i know only of Lit-link that does it, a free Filemaker runtime app (in German). Like Scribe it tries to act as ref manager as well and so you have the same problem.
Gerben
"Multiple notes per reference" is exactly the point: in addition to Scribe i know only of Lit-link that does it, a free Filemaker runtime app (in German). Like Scribe it tries to act as ref manager as well and so you have the same problem.
Gerben
A pity this thread seems to have bled to death rather soon (perhaps because of the holidays season) - I have been looking for the ideal note-taking solution for many years, and, being a historian as well, I share many of the concerns mentioned by Gerben. Both in archival research and in literature-based research there are several, sometimes conflicting aims:
1) to be able to assign searchable keywords or subject-areas to various bits and pieces of one archival document/book/article (in short: reference)
2) keeping all these bits and pieces firmly tied to the "mother"-reference, sometimes even in the right order so as not to lose the structure of an argument being made in the reference
3) not having to enter the reference information more than once
4) being able to link files generated by different applications to one reference (e.g. word-processing files for the abstract, spreadsheet-files for tables and image-files for illustrations or scanned copies of pages.
When I started implementing a solution many years ago, I initially gave the uppermost priority to aim 2, setting up a database in FMPro which contained records for each bit of information, searchable on achival location, keyword, text of the abstract field, year, and some other things.
Quite soon, however, I became aware of the limitations imposed by aim 3, and switched to a database in which each record corresponds to a reference, with up to ten different keywords to catch all the subject areas touched upon in the reference. (btw: the actual notes I took in a word-processing application or even in handwritten form, because of the limitations imposed by (4) on the use of a database application with one abstract field per record for note-taking, but also because most database applications are woefully inadequate for note-taking because of limitations in field-size and because text starts to run off the visible area of the screen pretty soon.
Far from an ideal solution of course, particularly in the light of consideration 4.
DevonThink initially seemd to hold the solution, but the more I have come to think about it, the more I feel it lacks the necessary rigidity dictated by consideration 2, as well as for effective searches of your notes. DevonThink really seems to be meant to deal with the post-modern information avalanche that is the worldwide web, and makes no attempt to trim the amount of information down to a manageable size.
Writing this post, I wondered to what extent BE actually would be able to fulfill my needs. I have been too stretched for time for a while to migrate to the new releases, still using 8.1.3, so I cannot really recall which changes have been introduced since, but I vaguely recall seeing something about attaching multiple files to one reference. Obviously, this would still not make the notes themselves searchable, but perhaps this could be done by entering the necessary keywords at the top of each of the different files attached to the reference, which, as far as I understand (still on 10.3.9), would make them retraceable through Spotlight, or indeed through Devon Think if you keep the attached files in folders linked to DT. One problem here would of course be keyword consistency, which is best guaranteed by the type of authoriy lists used in relational database applications.
Curious to hear people's reactions.
1) to be able to assign searchable keywords or subject-areas to various bits and pieces of one archival document/book/article (in short: reference)
2) keeping all these bits and pieces firmly tied to the "mother"-reference, sometimes even in the right order so as not to lose the structure of an argument being made in the reference
3) not having to enter the reference information more than once
4) being able to link files generated by different applications to one reference (e.g. word-processing files for the abstract, spreadsheet-files for tables and image-files for illustrations or scanned copies of pages.
When I started implementing a solution many years ago, I initially gave the uppermost priority to aim 2, setting up a database in FMPro which contained records for each bit of information, searchable on achival location, keyword, text of the abstract field, year, and some other things.
Quite soon, however, I became aware of the limitations imposed by aim 3, and switched to a database in which each record corresponds to a reference, with up to ten different keywords to catch all the subject areas touched upon in the reference. (btw: the actual notes I took in a word-processing application or even in handwritten form, because of the limitations imposed by (4) on the use of a database application with one abstract field per record for note-taking, but also because most database applications are woefully inadequate for note-taking because of limitations in field-size and because text starts to run off the visible area of the screen pretty soon.
Far from an ideal solution of course, particularly in the light of consideration 4.
DevonThink initially seemd to hold the solution, but the more I have come to think about it, the more I feel it lacks the necessary rigidity dictated by consideration 2, as well as for effective searches of your notes. DevonThink really seems to be meant to deal with the post-modern information avalanche that is the worldwide web, and makes no attempt to trim the amount of information down to a manageable size.
Writing this post, I wondered to what extent BE actually would be able to fulfill my needs. I have been too stretched for time for a while to migrate to the new releases, still using 8.1.3, so I cannot really recall which changes have been introduced since, but I vaguely recall seeing something about attaching multiple files to one reference. Obviously, this would still not make the notes themselves searchable, but perhaps this could be done by entering the necessary keywords at the top of each of the different files attached to the reference, which, as far as I understand (still on 10.3.9), would make them retraceable through Spotlight, or indeed through Devon Think if you keep the attached files in folders linked to DT. One problem here would of course be keyword consistency, which is best guaranteed by the type of authoriy lists used in relational database applications.
Curious to hear people's reactions.
Hi gke,
I do not want to suggest that Bookends can or should replace a good note-taking app. But here are a few things that you might find useful, some you have missed by not upgrading to Bookends 9 (you really should! -- it's free for anyone who bought Bookends 8 or later):
1. Static and smart groups. Adding references to static groups can even be done with keyboard shortcuts now.
2. Colored re-namable labels (which can be searched on).
3. Multiple attachments per references.
4. Spotlight searching of attached pdfs (no need for Bookends keywords unless you want the added flexibility).
5. Note taking drawer in the List View.
Coming in 9.0.7:
1. Attachments Inspector floating window.
2. Open attachments from the List View with a right-click.
3. More color labels.
There are no doubt other useful features that would apply here.
Jon
Sonny Software
I do not want to suggest that Bookends can or should replace a good note-taking app. But here are a few things that you might find useful, some you have missed by not upgrading to Bookends 9 (you really should! -- it's free for anyone who bought Bookends 8 or later):
1. Static and smart groups. Adding references to static groups can even be done with keyboard shortcuts now.
2. Colored re-namable labels (which can be searched on).
3. Multiple attachments per references.
4. Spotlight searching of attached pdfs (no need for Bookends keywords unless you want the added flexibility).
5. Note taking drawer in the List View.
Coming in 9.0.7:
1. Attachments Inspector floating window.
2. Open attachments from the List View with a right-click.
3. More color labels.
There are no doubt other useful features that would apply here.
Jon
Sonny Software
I too have considered using BE also as an application for taking 'independent' notes (I mean notes not tied to a particular bibliographical reference).
One could simply create a new reference type called for instance "note", and use only a limited number of fields: for instance, keywords, title, and abstract. In addition to the features mentioned by Jon, it must be said that Bookends' search-capabilities are excellent. So it should work.
But I don't have a clear picture of the exact advantages and downsides of a similar note-taking strategy. Does anybody have experience with a similar use of Bookends?
One could simply create a new reference type called for instance "note", and use only a limited number of fields: for instance, keywords, title, and abstract. In addition to the features mentioned by Jon, it must be said that Bookends' search-capabilities are excellent. So it should work.
But I don't have a clear picture of the exact advantages and downsides of a similar note-taking strategy. Does anybody have experience with a similar use of Bookends?
The major drawback appears the one made by Gerben - the necessity to repeatedly fill in the same information on where the information is derived from, even though of course BE's term lists do make this an easy task. Nonetheless, my earlier experiences with doing exactly this with ProCite (the good old Mac-version 2.1.1) suggests that it is exactly the need to repeatedly fill in the same info info in a number of fields which starts to irritate rather soon. I think the ideal option for linking bits of information to the source they are collected from should be no more than one or maximum two mouse clicks away.
A second drawback of the method suggested is that, if you do some serious note-taking, you end up with databases consisting of tremendous amounts of records, which might pose other problems.
I guess the ideal solution for note taking would be a combination of a BE database in which you can attach multiple files to one record, while being able to mark the content of these files with either tags of color codes allowing one to use Spotlight to search across these files for tags/color codes corresponding to subject categories as defined by the user. Does anybody know whether something like this exists?
A second drawback of the method suggested is that, if you do some serious note-taking, you end up with databases consisting of tremendous amounts of records, which might pose other problems.
I guess the ideal solution for note taking would be a combination of a BE database in which you can attach multiple files to one record, while being able to mark the content of these files with either tags of color codes allowing one to use Spotlight to search across these files for tags/color codes corresponding to subject categories as defined by the user. Does anybody know whether something like this exists?
Wouldn't "Duplicate Reference" do pretty much what you want here?gke wrote:The major drawback appears the one made by Gerben - the necessity to repeatedly fill in the same information on where the information is derived from, even though of course BE's term lists do make this an easy task. Nonetheless, my earlier experiences with doing exactly this with ProCite (the good old Mac-version 2.1.1) suggests that it is exactly the need to repeatedly fill in the same info info in a number of fields which starts to irritate rather soon.
Jon
Sonny Software
Apologies for a very late reply, just got back from holidays and can finally take a good luck at this.
I would not want to use BE for the type of note-taking outlined above, eg. multiple notes linked to one reference. BE is not designed for it and it would indeed create huge databases.
I would prefer good integration with existing apps which seem to come in two sorts:
Dedicated note-taking software:
The only software developed specifically for scholars are (correct me if i am wrong) Scribe and Lit-link (English and German), both freeware and based on Filemaker. Using this in connection with BE means one should be able to easily import BE refs in them or just put in a short title. I have to check how easy it is to export from BE in a format that allows import in these apps.
Information management software:
The type of database software like Devonthink. This seems to have a pretty long learning curve and one needs to invent one's own approach. I would be interested if somebody here could explain how to create multiple notes per reference in DT and how to combine BE and DT in one's work.
More thoughts welcome,
Gerben
I would not want to use BE for the type of note-taking outlined above, eg. multiple notes linked to one reference. BE is not designed for it and it would indeed create huge databases.
I would prefer good integration with existing apps which seem to come in two sorts:
Dedicated note-taking software:
The only software developed specifically for scholars are (correct me if i am wrong) Scribe and Lit-link (English and German), both freeware and based on Filemaker. Using this in connection with BE means one should be able to easily import BE refs in them or just put in a short title. I have to check how easy it is to export from BE in a format that allows import in these apps.
Information management software:
The type of database software like Devonthink. This seems to have a pretty long learning curve and one needs to invent one's own approach. I would be interested if somebody here could explain how to create multiple notes per reference in DT and how to combine BE and DT in one's work.
More thoughts welcome,
Gerben
This thread is striking at the heart of one of my big wants- namely for BE and Devonthink (DT) to play nicer together. I think DT will be able to index Mellel files soon (since the switch to xml) so its just Bookends to worry about now.
How to integrate them? I think it is a mistake, as well as unfair, to ask any of these apps to be a jack of all trades. I don't want DT to format bibs, and BE can't be a note taking database, and DT isn't supposed to be a powerful word processor. But they can play nicer together, which is what I keep harping about to the developers.
Right now, my paperless office looks like this- My Bookends attachments file is indexed in my DT database. This means any DT searches I do (and I disagree with gke- DT searches are excellent) includes my attachments folder, and I can open any attachments from DT. DT also keeps itself up-to-date- by attaching a script to the folder in my database it is always up to the minute.
As for my actual BE database. This is where the downer is for me. I can import my BE database into DT (and do). I have made a format that is simply author, title, date, abstract, and notes. I export them in BiBTex format which is then imported as a sheet into DT. When this is done, I know have my DT database, my attachments folder, and my BE database all searchable in one search from DT. The major flaw, of course, is that to keep the BE database up to date in DT I am continually having to export my entire BE database and replace the old one in DT.
What I would like to see- I would like DT to be able to read/index my BE database files and have it appear in a nice fashion in DT. Having that, everything is searchable together and my DT database would always be up to date because it would always be looking at my BE database as it is at that moment. With that in place, I would then like to have the ability to click on a BE citation and have it launched and brought up in Bookends. I have asked for this on both forums, and will continue to do so
p.s. Gerben- I am not sure what your question is - "how to create multiple notes per reference in DT". Could you be a bit more specific? I keep my notes mostly in BE. when I do them in DT, I create a folder for a book, and then create one or many rtf pages in that folder. I'll often name the pages according to the pg. # of the book, or use keywords for wikilinks.
Danny
How to integrate them? I think it is a mistake, as well as unfair, to ask any of these apps to be a jack of all trades. I don't want DT to format bibs, and BE can't be a note taking database, and DT isn't supposed to be a powerful word processor. But they can play nicer together, which is what I keep harping about to the developers.
Right now, my paperless office looks like this- My Bookends attachments file is indexed in my DT database. This means any DT searches I do (and I disagree with gke- DT searches are excellent) includes my attachments folder, and I can open any attachments from DT. DT also keeps itself up-to-date- by attaching a script to the folder in my database it is always up to the minute.
As for my actual BE database. This is where the downer is for me. I can import my BE database into DT (and do). I have made a format that is simply author, title, date, abstract, and notes. I export them in BiBTex format which is then imported as a sheet into DT. When this is done, I know have my DT database, my attachments folder, and my BE database all searchable in one search from DT. The major flaw, of course, is that to keep the BE database up to date in DT I am continually having to export my entire BE database and replace the old one in DT.
What I would like to see- I would like DT to be able to read/index my BE database files and have it appear in a nice fashion in DT. Having that, everything is searchable together and my DT database would always be up to date because it would always be looking at my BE database as it is at that moment. With that in place, I would then like to have the ability to click on a BE citation and have it launched and brought up in Bookends. I have asked for this on both forums, and will continue to do so
p.s. Gerben- I am not sure what your question is - "how to create multiple notes per reference in DT". Could you be a bit more specific? I keep my notes mostly in BE. when I do them in DT, I create a folder for a book, and then create one or many rtf pages in that folder. I'll often name the pages according to the pg. # of the book, or use keywords for wikilinks.
Danny
~I swore to myself that if I ever got to walk around the room as manager people would laugh as they saw me coming and applaud as I walked away~
Here is an example: i have a book on World War I and i read it and make notes. I put them in one file and i can add that to the BE record. However, if i am specifically interested in theories on the origin of WWI that are mentioned in the book i do not want to scroll through pages of notes to find them. I prefer to put these in separate records with a keyword so i can easily find them in a database. The decision i need to make is: what database?p.s. Gerben- I am not sure what your question is - "how to create multiple notes per reference in DT". Could you be a bit more specific? I keep my notes mostly in BE. when I do them in DT, I create a folder for a book, and then create one or many rtf pages in that folder. I'll often name the pages according to the pg. # of the book, or use keywords for wikilinks.
What you describe seems to come close to what i look for. Gerben
The big disadvantages of creating different documents (or records in a DB for that much) for different parts of one argument/book/archival file is that
(a) one tends to lose the overview over the way in which the different parts of the argument originally fitted together, which is particularly relevant as time passes after the initial note-taking
(b) almost inevitably the original argument is being disassembled according to the specific questions the researcher is asking at the moment of note-taking, whereas a different set of questions would need different cuts and cross-links between parts of the argument which might get lost in the disassembling process. The value of a database, therefore, becomes linked to specific projects, rather than being a source of reference for the rest of a fruitful academic career.
(c) it is annoying to constantly create new files or records, but this is of course entirely a matter of personal taste.
If we leave aside factor (c), the other two factors would argue in favour of a system of note-taking which leaves the original argument intact, but allows one to easily retrieve bits of information from this long argument using varying search criteria.
One way to achieve this functionality is the Spotlight-approach, which I thought DT was also based on (sorry, haven't found the time yet to get into the details of the application), which is basically making the entire text searchable. Obvious disadvantage: one can only do searches on expressions which are in the text. In Gerben's example, this would necessitate doing a search on "theories of World War I", yielding either an annoying amounts of hits if one leaves away the quotation marks, or nothing if the expression is not there exactly as is. Of course better search engines can find clever ways of reducing the number of empty hits, but still this is not the technology which allows a researcher to query his notes in a way which both minimises the possibility of missing relevant hits and the number of empty hits.
Another way is using a database with keywords, but this makes it imperative to either take notes for one argument in one document, or enter large numbers of records for one argument.
The ideal solution would be, and I remember having seen such software mentioned somewhere on a forum, but am afraid it was PC only, would be a note-taking application which would allow one to insert searchable keyword tags within the running notes of a particular argument, preferably from a pre-defined or fixed value list of keywords, so as to assure labeling consistency. Documents produced in this way could of course also be subsequently indexed in DT, Spotlight or whatever.
Would anyone know of such software?
PS: As for Gerben's desire to have a multiple to one relationship - isn't this something which can easily be implemented in FileMaker Pro through the use of portals?
Jon, sorry for unloading all this in the BE forum without even once mentioning the application .......guess it is just performing its task so well, that we are only thinking of ways how to make it interact in useful ways with the other applications we use. Danzac's suggestion to improve the interaction between BE and DT seems to be a good one in this respect.
(a) one tends to lose the overview over the way in which the different parts of the argument originally fitted together, which is particularly relevant as time passes after the initial note-taking
(b) almost inevitably the original argument is being disassembled according to the specific questions the researcher is asking at the moment of note-taking, whereas a different set of questions would need different cuts and cross-links between parts of the argument which might get lost in the disassembling process. The value of a database, therefore, becomes linked to specific projects, rather than being a source of reference for the rest of a fruitful academic career.
(c) it is annoying to constantly create new files or records, but this is of course entirely a matter of personal taste.
If we leave aside factor (c), the other two factors would argue in favour of a system of note-taking which leaves the original argument intact, but allows one to easily retrieve bits of information from this long argument using varying search criteria.
One way to achieve this functionality is the Spotlight-approach, which I thought DT was also based on (sorry, haven't found the time yet to get into the details of the application), which is basically making the entire text searchable. Obvious disadvantage: one can only do searches on expressions which are in the text. In Gerben's example, this would necessitate doing a search on "theories of World War I", yielding either an annoying amounts of hits if one leaves away the quotation marks, or nothing if the expression is not there exactly as is. Of course better search engines can find clever ways of reducing the number of empty hits, but still this is not the technology which allows a researcher to query his notes in a way which both minimises the possibility of missing relevant hits and the number of empty hits.
Another way is using a database with keywords, but this makes it imperative to either take notes for one argument in one document, or enter large numbers of records for one argument.
The ideal solution would be, and I remember having seen such software mentioned somewhere on a forum, but am afraid it was PC only, would be a note-taking application which would allow one to insert searchable keyword tags within the running notes of a particular argument, preferably from a pre-defined or fixed value list of keywords, so as to assure labeling consistency. Documents produced in this way could of course also be subsequently indexed in DT, Spotlight or whatever.
Would anyone know of such software?
PS: As for Gerben's desire to have a multiple to one relationship - isn't this something which can easily be implemented in FileMaker Pro through the use of portals?
Jon, sorry for unloading all this in the BE forum without even once mentioning the application .......guess it is just performing its task so well, that we are only thinking of ways how to make it interact in useful ways with the other applications we use. Danzac's suggestion to improve the interaction between BE and DT seems to be a good one in this respect.