Re: [Jabref-users] Docear [was: bugs in Version 2.10]

[Axel D. <ad...@gw...>]

Dear list,

Sorry for being a bit late, but let me say I don't think it would be a 
good idea to merge JabRef with the Docear suite if this should mean 
JabRef would no more be available as an application standing on its 
own. Hector listed several reasons why Docear does not appear as a 
true alternative to JabRef if you are interested in nothing more than 
organising your references in a convenient way. And one of the main 
advantages of JabRef is you can have a lot of them, my everyday 
database listing some 45.000 entries.

Docear is not the first IT project that has tried to catch all sorts 
of common tasks in academia by one strike. Let alone the fact that the 
field of science is very diverse - and, e.g., computer science might 
be a tiny spot at the far end of it - there is no practical use of 
doing everything with a single tool. There are many good reasons why 
we have document processors, spreadsheets, statistical software, ... 
and reference managers such as JabRef. I have been using it for years, 
and I guess it is the best reference manager I ever had.

Axel


Am Dienstag, 01. April 2014, 12:38:00 schrieb Hector Martinez-Seara:
> Hi all,
> 
>  I would like to share my five cents to the following question.
> 
> > BTW: What is your opinion regarding a merge with Docear? :)
> 
> I have been experimenting with Docear a bit lately. It seems
> promising. However it is far more complicated than Jabref. And it
> lack some important features that Jabref currently offers when it
> comes to just dealing with references. Please find below just a few
> examples I came across when doing the tests:
> 
> - "Syncronize file links" option is missing which is fundamental to
> find again pdf after moving files around using OS tools. This is
> somehow solved by moving files around inside Docear. But even then
> my experiments show that it is faulty specially when you want to
> classify pdfs placing them in different directories. Also Docear
> seems to work with absolute paths mainly. You usually end up having
> disagreements between the mind map and the bib file. I have to
> write a bug about this but I need first to experiment a bit further
> as it might be I'm doing something wrong. As I say it is not easy
> program.
> 
> - Docear currently cannot look for references in databases like
> Medline, Google scholar, etc. They have they own search engine to
> offer references based in your current references. Although this is
> an interesting service it cannot replace a search for specific
> articles required often in my work.
> 
> - Some of the star features, dealing with annotations,  require the
> user to use a restricted set of pdf readers. I know that this is
> not strictly Docear's fault, it is mainly a problem of how the
> annotations is implemented by the programs. But the fact is that
> not a single pdf reader in linux match their characteristics. This
> problem can be overcome using some windows pdf readers through wine
> but I'm not really in favor for such solution.
> 
> - As the screen contains always the mind map, it cannot be hidden,
> the references table panel has a limited space. As a consequence
> you cannot see well the references there. Authors, titles and
> journals are truncated. If you expand one field then the others
> become smaller, like in Jabref but with a third of the available
> space in the screen. This complicates the usability of the table. 
> Of course this issue can be technically solved, e.g. if this window
> become floating or mapmind window can be hide as the others.
> 
> - Also I have not seen any tools to share the bibliography between
> groups. This is somehow complicated due to the central concept of
> the annotations which are stored in the pdfs themselves.
> 
> Please, do not take me wrong. This email does not aim to be a critic
> towards Docear. In fact I recommend you all to give a shot to
> Docear. It is a very interesting project and very mature. What I'm
> trying to say is that currently Docear cannot be used as a
> substitute of Jabref, the workflows somehow differ. Of course with
> work or changing my way of doing things this can be solved or at
> least minimized. Still, in time the idea of a merge seems
> reasonable to me which might help to avoid doubling efforts.
> 
> I will follow Docear a bit more from now on and try to help at least
> reporting bugs and requesting existing features in JabRef to soften
> the transition if JabRef developers decide in favor of the merge.
> Let me finish congratulating both Jabref and Docear developers for
> their superb job.
> 
> Thanks,
> Hector Martinez-Seara Monné