Feature request: Additional reference types

[matthias]

Hi,
I use Bookends in legal research, specifically european and international law. In doing so, I have more or less the same needs with regard to Bookends' features as most other scientists or researches from other fields. But there is one big exception that concerns the number of available reference types:

I need more than the 27 currently made available.

This is mainly due to the many different cases from various state or international entities that I work with. Each of those usually calls for different citation format. Also, keeping e.g. decisions of the European Court of Justice and those of the European Court for Human Rights in separate reference types allows to group those decisions accordingly. So, for me both formatting and sorting/archiving call for additional reference types beyond the 27 already offered in Bookends.

I therefore would like to see how Jon feels about adding more reference types. Is the current limitation owed to some internal database restriction? Also, what do other users think about my request. Am I the only one who needs more reference types?

Regards,
Matthias

[Jon]

Hi,

One quick workaround -- you can rename any reference Types that you don't use to whatever you want. Types like AudioVisual and Map, for example, are rarely used. There are others that you probably don't use as well, and could be renamed to something more useful for you.

Jon
Sonny Software

[matthias]

Jon,

The Problem is I am getting to the point where all reference types have been renamed. I still have the two you mentioned an two unused. But I forsee that I will need more than those in the near future.

Matthias

[danzac]

I have no idea of how you reference things, but can certain reference types do double-duty for you?

For instance, my journal article format can handle a regular journal, a republished journal, a journal published in multiple places, and a journal that was subsequently republished in a book. My book format can handle a regular book, an edited book, a translated book, a book in a series, and a book in an edited series that is itself part of a multivolume edited work. Because the formatting function of BE works so well, it knows how to ignore fields and surrounding punctuation if they are empty. It takes time to get your formatting to the point of handling different types, but can be done.

If you are able to collapse several into one of the reference types, you can then use color labels or keywords to be able to group them accordingly, then just make a smart group that is filled according the keyword or color label.

[Jon]

Danny, thanks for the suggestions. I hope Matthias finds them useful.

I would point out (to Matthias), though, that after thinking about the post, it makes a lot more sense to use Groups to distinguish between the reference sets. Reference Types are not intended for that purpose (one Type is to be used by many references, and perhaps many groups).

Jon
Sonny Software

[matthias]

Danny and Jon,

thanks for your replies. Indeed, several reference types do already include different references, but I might be able to push this a little further. Groups based on keywords seem like a reasonable but laborious solution, because I will have to go through all my references and add an appropriate keyword.

Jon, can I derive from your postings that there will be no additional fields in the foreseeable future?

Matthias

[Jon]

They can be based on any almost property, including arbitrary. That's what I'm suggesting in this case -- you want to assign arbitrary Types, when I think you would be much better off assigning the references to arbitrary (static) groups.

As for more Types, not in the next update, which is feature-frozen. After that, if people really want it I'd certainly consider it. But just throwing more user-defined Types at this seems to me to be the wrong solution to the problem as you have described it.

Jon
Sonny Software

[danzac]

Danny and Jon,

thanks for your replies. Indeed, several reference types do already include different references, but I might be able to push this a little further. Groups based on keywords seem like a reasonable but laborious solution, because I will have to go through all my references and add an appropriate keyword.

Jon, can I derive from your postings that there will be no additional fields in the foreseeable future?

Matthias

Matthias, if I understand your situation, this would not be laborious at all. Make a smart group of a reference type that you want to add a keyword to. Then go into that smart group, and shift-click the hitbox to choose them all. Then go to global change>change field, and 'put in' a keyword of your choice (be careful to not choose 'replace' if you don't want other data in your keywords field deleted). If you have can collapse different reference types into one and the keywords you have assigned work well for classification, then use a hits list and global change their reference type.

[Jon]

One small caveat -- wait for the next update to do this (if you do it at all). There is a bug in Global Change -> Change Field in version 9.1.


Jon
sonny Software

[matthias]

They can be based on any almost property, including arbitrary. That's what I'm suggesting in this case -- you want to assign arbitrary Types, when I think you would be much better off assigning the references to arbitrary (static) groups.

Sorry, Jon. I can't follow you here. Do you refer to static groups? What "can be based on almost any property"? Groups or Types?

As for the rest, I tweaked my formats a little, freed up several types, and now I indeed have gained 10 additional types that I can use! So regard my request as adjourned sine die.

Thanks again,
Matthias

[Jon]

I meant groups.

Static groups are by definition arbitrary.

Smart groups can be based on almost any property (or combinations of properties) a reference has, including content (of course), attachments, and even color label.

Jon
Sonny Software