In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Adam M. Goldstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 28, 2008, at 6:49 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote: > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > > "Adam M. Goldstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> On Apr 28, 2008, at 1:28 PM, James Howison wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> There are obviously pros and cons of controlled vocabulary. The > >>> major > >>> one, from the perspective of an open source project, is that > >>> maintaining them is administration heavy. I don't think it's > >>> appropriate for BibDesk, or any application, to take on that task. > >>> > >>> Now if there were a source of a known controlled vocabulary, managed > >>> by someone else and available online in a machine parse-able > >>> format, > >>> then one could conceivably design a field in BibDesk that would only > >>> accept keywords in that vocabulary (and perhaps make cross- > >>> referencing > >>> suggestions, depending on the semantic machinery provided by the > >>> keyword controlling authority). Was that more what you had in mind? > >>> > >>> --J > >> > >> > >> I think it would be nice just to have the ability to create a > >> controlled vocabulary for one's self, that is, to have a term list > >> independent of the keywords that are entered into the keyword fields. > >> Maybe a CSV file could be loaded in. > > > > What would you do with it? > > You would select terms from it to put in as key words. Rather than > thinking up new key words every time, you would select from the list, > which would keep your usage consistent. Okay, I more-or-less use autocompletion in the editor for this (as you mention later). I think that's a pretty good solution for new entries or manual edits, but the OP wanted something that would help with downloaded entries. I'm not sure what can be done with those, although I agree with him that keyword pollution is a problem. > >> Note that you can do something somewhat like controlling your own > >> vocabulary by setting the groups pane to show keywords; Then you see > >> things like "Philosophy" and "philosophy," and you can consolidate. > > > > It's still unclear to me what the OP is asking for, so I've avoided > > commenting on it. I believe groups are case-insensitive, though, so > > the > > scenario you mention shouldn't occur. > > What about keywords? That is what I use for subject indexing my BT > records. I am pretty sure I do have this problem. Nope, keywords are compared case-insensitively. I just added "ADSORPTION" to an item, and it was immediately visible in the "adsorption" keyword group. If that's not working for you, it's a bug. Did I misunderstand the problem? -- adam ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ Bibdesk-develop mailing list Bibdesk-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-develop
