> > Probably the duplicates are not really duplicates, in that there is > some difference. We check whether the standard fields (required, > optional, or default fields) are the same to check for duplicates. We > don't check the cite key. So it may also depend on how far they > differ. Does checking for duplicates tell you anything?
I'm not sure what you mean. After I do the merge, checking for duplicates tells me that there are now 252 duplicates. What else is it supposed to tell me? It seems that Bibdesk is merging the bib files despite the fact that they are duplicates. Maybe I'm doing things wrong? I'd be happy to email you the bib files if you want to test them. > There is no easy way to keep only one item if there is no clear way > to know when they are equivalent. Somewhere you'll have to make the > decision *which* item to delete, an automatic process could never do > that without being arbitrary. Suppose that I don't care if it's arbitrary. My cite key system is set up so that there is always a 1-to-1 correspondence between cite key and publication. I'd be perfectly happy to arbitrarily throw away all but one of each record with multiple cite keys. I don't suppose there's an easy way to do that? Chris ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Bibdesk-users mailing list Bibdesk-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
