Hi Greg,
In fact, someone had already filed a bug report in November, but it
was closed apparently with no other solution than requiring users to
use a previous version of BibDesk (1.3.17 or earlier) to do the import
from PubMed, which is, in my opinion, not very useful. This is:
http://sou
On Jan 3, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Miguel Ortiz Lombardia wrote:
In fact, someone had already filed a bug report in November, but it
was closed apparently with no other solution than requiring users to
use a previous version of BibDesk (1.3.17 or earlier) to do the import
from PubMed, which is, in my
On Dec 31, 2008, at 1:47 PM, Chris Borst wrote:
I did a Cited References search on Web of Knowledge and downloaded the
resultant records, including the Cited References, in BibTex format.
I wonder if that can be used from BibDesk's internal ISI search
feature...
These files were then ope
On 3 Jan 2009, at 7:01 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>
> On Jan 3, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Miguel Ortiz Lombardia wrote:
>
>> In fact, someone had already filed a bug report in November, but it
>> was closed apparently with no other solution than requiring users to
>> use a previous version of BibDesk (1
On Jan 3, 2009, at 11:42 PM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
On 3 Jan 2009, at 7:01 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
FWIW, I'd suggest that Greg's patch or the original code should
probably be used for PubMed, since this sounds like pretty serious
breakage for PubMed.
--
Adam
But this is in the RIS p
On 4 Jan 2009, at 12:06 AM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>
> On Jan 3, 2009, at 11:42 PM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
>
>> On 3 Jan 2009, at 7:01 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>>
>>> FWIW, I'd suggest that Greg's patch or the original code should
>>> probably be used for PubMed, since this sounds like pretty
On 2009-01-03 23:06, "Adam R. Maxwell" wrote:
>>> FWIW, I'd suggest that Greg's patch or the original code should
>>> probably be used for PubMed, since this sounds like pretty serious
>>> breakage for PubMed.
Absolutely.
>> But this is in the RIS parser, not the PubMed parser, which completely
On Jan 4, 2009, at 12:31 AM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
Ah, I was looking at another change. I thought this was about a recent
change, this is a relatively old change.
RIS is truly a mess, that's why the RIS parsers are a mess.
That's a bit unfair, since RIS and MEDLINE actually are well
docu
On 4 Jan 2009, at 1:35 AM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2009, at 12:31 AM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
>
>> Ah, I was looking at another change. I thought this was about a
>> recent
>> change, this is a relatively old change.
>>
>> RIS is truly a mess, that's why the RIS parsers are a mess.
