#1232 2.10: Some key words are repeated and appended with different capitalization.

[Dr. Richard Shepard]

Release 2.10: When I add key words, or edit that block of information, some times a second copy of that key word is appended to the end of the list with different capitalization. I cannot remove it because saving the record restores the second copy. This means that there are multiple key word groups that differ only slightly and I cannot clean this up and have it stick.

TIA,

Rich

[John Marohn]

There are two major problems with keywords in JabRef right now. (1) When generating groups from keywords, JabRef changes the capitalization of my keywords. This is a bug. It should not do this; it should respect MY capitalization choices. Why? Because a lot of my keywords contain acronyms, such as "NMR" for "Nuclear Magnetic Resonance". I want my keyword to read "NMR" and not "nmr" and I want my keywords to start with a lower-case letter if I so choose. (2) Keywords are truncated in the display. Only the first 32 or 33 characters are displayed. This is a problem for those of use who use long descriptive keywords like "charge transport > measurements > current > thermal conductance" or "electrochemistry > ORR > characterization > gas-diffusion electrode". Note the acronym "ORR", shorthand for "Oxygen Reduction Reaction".

[Rich Shepard]

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014, John Marohn wrote:

There are two major problems with keywords in JabRef right now.

(1) When generating groups from keywords, JabRef changes the capitalization
of my keywords. This is a bug. It should not do this; it should respect MY
capitalization choices. Why? Because a lot of my keywords contain
acronyms, such as "NMR" for "Nuclear Magnetic Resonance". I want my
keyword to read "NMR" and not "nmr" and I want my keywords to start with a
lower-case letter if I so choose.

+1

(2) Keywords are truncated in the display. Only the first 32 or 33
characters are displayed. This is a problem for those of use who use long
descriptive keywords like "charge transport > measurements > current >
thermal conductance" or "electrochemistry > ORR > characterization >
gas-diffusion electrode". Note the acronym "ORR", shorthand for "Oxygen
Reduction Reaction".

Why not make each word/phrase a separate keyword? You can have charge
transport, measurements, current, thermal conductance as 4 key words and not
only select each individually, but filter your search to include the
combinations you want.

I have the same paper under multiple keywords because it fits in all
categories. Using your example, I might want all references on measurements
separate from a specific grouping.

Rich

--
Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D.
Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc. | Troutdale, OR 97060 USA
www.appl-ecosys.com Voice: 503-667-4517 Fax: 503-667-8863

[John Marohn]

< newbie who doesn't know how to reply in the right place >

[John Marohn]

I appreciate your suggestion. I have come up with the filing system I described because your suggested method became unwieldy. See, I also have keywords beginning

charge transport > modeling > ...
charge transport > theory > ...

In other words, there are measurements, modeling, and theory that have been done involving charge transport. I also have, for example,

charge injection > measurements > ...
charge injection > modeling > ....
charge injection > theory > ...

Since roughly 1/2 of my approximately 2300 bibliographic entries involve measurements, I do not want to have to do a search to narrow down "measurements" every time I want to find something. If I file under the suggested short-keyword method, then I have to search for "charge injection" AND "measurements" AND etc etc to find essentially anything. With my long-keyword method, I can just rifle down my list of keywords and find what I want without having to search. I do also file things using short keywords, but this long-keyword system allows me to locate papers far quicker. Moreover, if I give my bib file to someone, them they can look down my list of long keywords and quickly glean what subjects are covered in my database.

Another fix would be to have keywords, sub-keywords, sub-sub-keywords and so on. That's essentially what I trying to implement with my ">" system.