Rename fields in displays

Help
Irish
2009-05-12
2013-05-28
  • Irish
    Irish
    2009-05-12

    I am still struggling w/importing RIS files so that it pleases the Ph.D. whose data I am importing. Yes, she's driving me crazy with little tiny things before she'll totally agree to use refbase. Arrgghhh!!! I've resolved most of them - here are the latest ones that have me stumped.

    So this time I would like to import M2 and Y2 into some existing fields(as I realize how much of a pain it would be to actually add fields). I have not figured out which one as she's used these fields for conference location and conference dates, respectively.

    The other two - T3 and U1 - I would like them imported into conference and Area (?) fields, respectively.

    Of course, if I can successfully do this - I will need to rename the field names so they are labelled correctly.

    She sent a whole list of problems with the imported data; however, I believe I have resolved all of her other issues except these 4 fields. Any help you can give me would be greatly appreciated.

    I do have a smaller .ris file that contains 4 or 5 records that have these fields in them, if that would be useful. Let me know & I'll email it to you.

    Thanks again....

     
    • To accomplish this, you'd edit includes/import.inc.php

      I don't think that these fields are standard, so it is unlikely that these would make it into the main refbase distribution.  Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

      > So this time I would like to import M2 and Y2 into some existing fields(as I
      > realize how much of a pain it would be to actually add fields). I have not figured
      > out which one as she's used these fields for conference location and conference
      > dates, respectively.

      Are these used only for conference proceedings & does the RIS file use a publication date & place in addition to these?  If so, perhaps "Notes" is as good a place as any.  I suppose that "expedition" may be a "safe" field for one of these (as it isn't really used much).  Note that it wouldn't be conserved on export.

      > The other two - T3 and U1 - I would like them imported into conference and Area
      > (?) fields, respectively.

      Note that this abuses T3, which is for a series title (which refbase maps correctly).  Changing this mapping will cause references with series title to import incorrectly.

      U1 is currently reserved for the type of thesis, as that is the convention that bibutils uses.  Again, theses might import incorrectly with this change.

      You may want to have her begin to use U fields that are unmapped in refbase instead.

      > Of course, if I can successfully do this - I will need to rename the field names
      > so they are labelled correctly.

      Edit the localization files to achieve this.

      > She sent a whole list of problems with the imported data; however, I believe
      > I have resolved all of her other issues except these 4 fields.

      I haven't followed discussions closely, but a short summary of changes that should make it into the refbase sourcecode to benefit other users would be appreciated.

      --Rick

       
      • Irish
        Irish
        2009-05-13

        >I don't think that these fields are standard, so it is unlikely that these >would make it into the main refbase distribution. Please correct me if >I'm mistaken.

        I am using Reference Manager 11 and M2 is labeled in the template for conference types "Conference Location" while Y2 is labeled "Date of Conf". I would hope that since they are "standard" fields, it would eventually be incorporated into refbase.

        If that's the case, I don't want to import them into an existing field (or do I)?

        >Are these used only for conference proceedings & does the RIS file >use a publication date & place in addition to these? If so, >perhaps "Notes" is as good a place as any. I suppose >that "expedition" may be a "safe" field for one of these (as it isn't >really used much). Note that it wouldn't be conserved on export.

        The two fields (M2 & Y2) only appeared to be included in references to conferences. They do include a pub date as well as a pub place. The Notes field is also available in these conference references - not sure how often they are used. So if there is data in Notes already, and I add the M2 & Y2 information, it will simply append to the existing data in that field, correct? I haven't found a record w/Notes AND M2/Y2 but there are over 13,000 so...

        I understand about T3 but actually meant T2 (conference title w/in Conference type in RM and Abbreviated Series Title in refbase).

        U1 - the first user defined field in RefMan - being confiscated by bibutils for use in splitting up an existing field (Thesis/dissertation Type) into a field that is billed as a field defined by the individual user. That's just crazy. I just can't see how I am going to get around this problem. The records marked as Thesis/Dissertation (type) do not have what kind of thesis it is anywhere in the record so U1=>Theses field is not at all useful to us at this point.

        If I wanted to rename Theses to Extent and remove the drop-down menu; could I also add Theses/Dissertation back into the Types field? And would our data import correctly? How much extra work are we talking about (which files would I need to be edited, etc.)?

        As always, I do appreciate all the incite & help I receive from ya'll. I will let you know how successful/unsuccessful I am in making these revisions and ultimately, making my client happy (what I live for!).

        --Cindy

         
        • > I am using Reference Manager 11 and M2 is labeled in the template for conference
          > types "Conference Location" while Y2 is labeled "Date of Conf". I would hope
          > that since they are "standard" fields, it would eventually be incorporated into
          > refbase.

          The RIS specification is at:
          http://www.refman.com/support/risformat_intro.asp

          M2 is a "miscellaneous" field and Y2 is just a secondary date.  The spec does not require the fields to represent what RM11 apparently uses them for.  We'd want to see what other tools were treating these fields as before incorporating them into refbase.

          > If that's the case, I don't want to import them into an existing field (or do
          > I)?

          If you want them to be used in the near future, I do think you'd want to use an existing field: support for these won't be quick.  It might eventually come (in which case you may want to run a SQL command when you updated your database to use the non-customized fields).

          > I understand about T3 but actually meant T2 (conference title w/in Conference
          > type in RM and Abbreviated Series Title in refbase).

          T2 is mapped to "Publication."  Again, I think this is correct behavior (T2 is the secondary title & is the work that includes the reference that you are describing).  Other reference managers do the same thing, although some (EndNote, Zotero, and probably RM11) will rename the fields, based on the reference type.  I suppose that refbase could do this for full record views (but tabular views & input would not work this way).

          Does RM11 support both a conference title & a proceedings title?  If so, where does it put the latter?

          > U1 - the first user defined field in RefMan - being confiscated by bibutils
          > for use in splitting up an existing field (Thesis/dissertation Type) into a
          > field that is billed as a field defined by the individual user. That's just
          > crazy.

          Both RM & refbase/bibutils are following the RIS spec correctly here.  You can't count on the U fields to have the same data from one program to the next.

          Since refbase uses RIS as an intermediate format, I think it makes sense for use to follow the bibutils conventions where possible.  Perhaps we can ask that bibutils follow the conventions for the more popular reference managers in the future, but I'm sure you can see that there is no perfect solution to using limited/flat file formats like RIS.

          The reason that I suggest you stash your data in something other than U1 is that I imagine it would be easy to modify a single RIS file and/or the RIS exporter in RM11 on that single machine & that future data put into refbase might include a diverse set of input formats (which might go through bibutils, so will use that convention).  If this is a mistaken assumption & you won't ever use bibutils, please replace U1.

          > If I wanted to rename Theses to Extent and remove the drop-down menu

          Off-the-cuff, I'd say there was no reason to use the theses field for this information.  It seems much easier to change the field used in refbase (assuming you will mostly import from RM11 & that you will use RM11 from multiple machines) or to change either the file exported from RM11 or the exporter used in RM11.

          --Rick