#46 "addword" - make new reserved words available

open
refdbd (24)
5
2010-05-17
2010-05-11
akusmin
No

Hello!
I had to add some reserved words using the addword command.
The problem: after I added new reserved words (e.g. Solid, State, and Ionics), even after I used the "updateref" commando,
the latex bibliography is still created with "Solid.State.Ionics" as journal abbreviation.
The only solution I found so far is to delete the database and recreate it.

Request/Question Could you add / Is there any simpler way to take into account new reserved words?
If there is already such way, could add this information to the manual?

Thank you!

P.S.
please consider adding the following words into the default list (some of them may be in this list of the development version I guess)

MACROMOLECULES
MATTER
SOLID
STATE
IONICS

Discussion

  • Markus Hoenicka

    Markus Hoenicka - 2010-05-17

    I'll have to run a few tests, but it looks like there is a bug in the insert_periodical() function. As far as I understand the source code, the function adds additional synonyms when updating, but it won't touch existing synonyms even if a corrected version is provided. Obviously, updateref should update synonyms if they need to be changed. I'll look into this. Also, adding reserved words is no big deal. Feel free to throw further words my way .

     
  • Markus Hoenicka

    Markus Hoenicka - 2010-05-17
    • labels: --> refdbd
    • assigned_to: nobody --> mhoenicka
     
  • Markus Hoenicka

    Markus Hoenicka - 2010-05-25

    I've checked the code again - there is nothing wrong with updating the journal synonyms. The current (and correct) behaviour has been around for at least three years.

    I've tried to reproduce your problem to no avail. I added a random journal article containing "Solid" in the fake journal abbreviation. Next I've added "SOLID" to the list of abbreviated words. I've then updated the article without changing anything in the RIS dataset. Next time I retrieved it, "Solid" was written without a trailing dot, as expected.

    Could you please create a test kit with some sample data and an exact list of commands which reproduces your problem. I'll be happy to try again.

    regards,
    Markus

     
  • akusmin

    akusmin - 2010-05-26

    Thank you, Markus. In the next several days I'll try to reproduce the problem.

    Well, I use refdb-0.9.9-1.tar.gz , which is about 3 years old. On the other hand, perhaps I could have introduced the problem myself by manually changing permissions for some refDB directories in /var.
    OK, I'll write again when I have more info.

     
  • Nobody/Anonymous

    Hi. I found out why the bibliography generated after new reserved words were added via "addword" was exactly the same as before.
    You said that you did "updateref" after you added a new reserved word. I did not.
    At least in the manual for 0.9.9-1 there is
    nothing said about the necessity to run "updateref" whenever you use addword/deleteword.

    See, I thought that in the process of generation of the bibliography every citation is checked against the list of the reserved words. Therefore, any change in the list of the reserved words does not require updating citations.
    From the fact that "updateref" is required I conclude that 1) the form in which the citation is stored internally *depends* on the list of the reserved words 2) hence, generation of the bibliography does not involve consulting the list of reserved words.

    In my opinion the necessity to use updateref is not convenient, (I *have to know* in which file I have the citation to make the new reserved word to have an effect on the freshly produced latex article).

    Anyway, revision 718 works for me on Slackware. Thank you)

     
  • Markus Hoenicka

    Markus Hoenicka - 2010-06-04

    I see the problem. There was no way for you to know that you need to run updateref after adding reserved words as I can't expect you to know the innards of RefDB. However, the current behaviour is pretty much a design issue. In terms of computing time, it is prudent to perform time-consuming tasks once (when you add a reference) instead of multiple times (when you retrieve references or build bibliographies). I do understand that it is inconvenient if you add several references using words which are not yet known to the database without realizing this fact after the first reference. I personally run getref after each addref just to make sure the datasets arrived ok. I'll try to figure out a better way to deal with this. I could make refdbd run a background task to automatically update affected journal titles after adding reserved words, just like it runs a background task to check titles and abstracts for existing keywords after each addref command.

     
  • akusmin

    akusmin - 2010-06-04

    1) I checked again whether with refdb-0.9.9-1.tar.gz doing "updateref" makes an user-added reserved word without a dot in the bibliography. Yes, it does. So, I was wrong when in the first post I said updateref did not help.

    2) Actually, from the practical point of view it is not a big issue: the list of reserved words is indeed rather complete. On a rare occasion when one has to add a new reserved words one could just use updateref on all citations. (Or delete databases and recreate them, that's what I did). It's just the necessity to run updateref must be mentioned/stressed in docs.

     

Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.

Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:





No, thanks