is there any news/details on the "Public groups (tags)"-feature listed on the website. Since we want to establish refbase for a huge research group we need to do some sorting/categorization.
Are there any plans to start the implementation of this feature soon or is there any possibility to support the implementation?
There is a lot of interest (including a proposed bounty) on this feature, but it is not very close to being incorporated. If you have the resources to implement it, developers would be happy to assist you with that implementation.
Do note that refbase is already used in many large research groups, and the other public fields (esp. 'keywords,' but sometimes 'area' or others) are usually used to a similar (though less powerful) effect.
Just an update on that proposed bounty…
A developer is working now on adding public tags. We've designed it to work like the current User Groups to allow for ease-of-use and consistency.
Viewing records: If you login to the refbase demo and go to the Home screen, you'll see a User Groups box with a drop down menu. Selecting one of those groups will display all records in that group. The same thing will happen with Public Tags. Another box will be on the Home screen for all users, regardless of login status. This will let you use both your own categorization (User Groups) and the collaborative categorization (Public Tags).
Adding/Removing records from Public Tag groups: This will also follow the same functionality as User Groups. On the record edit screen will be a section that shows all available Public Tags. On the Show page, you can select multiple records (check boxes) and there will be a drop-down menu at the bottom that will let you add or remove them from a Public Tag group. A single record can be in multiple Public Tag groups.
What is still undecided is how to deal with the creation or deletion of Public Tags. At the moment, we're using a closed-system wherein the Admin user sets the list of Public Tags via a command-line MySQL interface. If a user wants a new Public Tag they need to go through the Admin to get it. There is no reason, however, that someone can't choose to implement an open system. That could be version 1.1.
The developer should be done within the next month and is going to submit all code to the SVN so the project admins can review it. He'll also submit some other goodies over the next few months:
(1) command-line driven PHP script in the contrib/command-line directory that takes a folder of PDF files named with the PubMed ID and generates a new refbase record (+ PDF) for each. It throws duplicates into an error folder for manual inspection. The point of this is to let you do bulk uploads.
(2) Modification of the above import script to take a BibUtils file and a directory of PDF files. We've found that some desktop reference managers include the name of the PDF file in the BibUtils export, so you can use that to associate the citation information with the PDF file. Again, the purpose is to enable bulk uploads.
(3) Modification of the Import Record by DOI. If you supply a DOI, it will first query PubMed instead of CrossRef. If the article is in the PubMed database, this will give you a lot more citation information (abstract, keywords, etc). If it isn't, then the CrossRef will be used.
(4) Multiple files per record. This will let you upload a PDF of the manuscript, maybe some Excel files of data tables, etc.
(5) and whatever else we come up with that can be done in a reasonable amount of time.
@jkmm: your entry sounds very interesting, really! I've been looking for some group-sharing capabilities, since our database is growing steadily and people want to share their groups more easily with each other.
Is it possible to get a download permission so we can implement this public tag feature in our institution's refbase database?
thanks a lot, and have a great weekend all,
We have the same problem. We have to categorize the references in our refbase database, and this work would help a lot.
Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:
You seem to have CSS turned off.
Please don't fill out this field.