On 2007-October-09 , at 18:32 , P Kishor wrote: > In my quest to put up my citations in a place where they can be shared > with others, I started exploring Connotea (<http://www.connotea.org>), > an open source online citations manager created by Nature.com and let > loose in the wild. > > Well, I started by importing my BibDesk bib into Connotea. After > whirring for about 20 mins, it reported that out of my 98 citations, > only 40 had been imported. The primary cause of not importing the bulk > of the remaining 58 was missing "URI, PMID, ASIN, or DOI." A quick > Google-ing explained to me what the heck that meant, and indeed, I > didn't have a "PubMed Unique Identifier", an "Amazon Standard > Identification Number", or a "Digital Object Identifier" let alone a > URI from which Connotea could have retrieved the requisite info. > > I am thankful for BibDesk being lenient and not rejecting my entries, > but now I am thinking -- what is it that I can do to make my > bibliography more "complete", "accurate", and "reliable." > > I realize this is not a BibDesk-specific question, but most of you > know waaaaay more than I do about citations and bibliographies, so I > hope you can teach me a few things here. Eventually I want my entire > BibDesk to be imported into Connotea (or any other such site that you > might suggest as being better) and back again, if required.
If the idea is to make your bib file public I can suggest: - exporting it in html from bibdesk and posting this on you personal site - exporting your citations to CiteULike. CuL can import BibTeX and will make less changes than what Connotea apparently does. However it will just take the information in your bib file as is, without completing the missing fields (which Connotea might do apparently, since it requires some identifier to fetch the publication information). From CiteULike you can also import citations from web pages or such and export everything back to bibdesk with no loss of information if you stick to the classic bibtex fields. Linking PDFs is a more delicate mater and I don't remember if I found a solution. CiteULike is really nice but two-way communication with BibDesk is still problematic. I would personally love to see this improved. Anyone motivated ;) Last I remember, CuL guys (well guy actually since it is kind of a one man project) were quite open to such ideas. JiHO --- http://jo.irisson.free.fr/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
