Re: [Refdb-users] DOI and edition
Status: Beta
Brought to you by:
mhoenicka
From: Stephan G. <st...@ga...> - 2012-01-28 20:53:44
|
Hello! I've found some time to compile the svn version (754) and now I got the DOI correctly, Thanks a lot. Nevertheless, I experienced some other problems. That's the RIS entry I imported into an empty database: TY - BOOK ID - SCHOLZ_SOFTWARE_ENGINEERING_EMBEDDED BT - Softwareentwicklung eingebetteter Systeme AU - Scholz,Peter PY - 2005/// VL - 2 CY - Berlin, Heidelberg PB - Springer Verlag SN - 3-540-23405-5 M3 - DOI:10.1007/3-540-27522-3 ER - When I use refdbc: getref :ID:=1 -t ris -s ALL TY - BOOK ID - SCHOLZ_SOFTWARE_ENGINEERING_EMBEDDED AU - Scholz,Peter RP - NOT IN FILE BT - Softwareentwicklung eingebetteter Systeme CY - Berlin, Heidelberg PB - Springer Verlag M3 - DOI:10.1007/3-540-27522-3 ER - ER - PY - 2005/// SN - 3-540-23405-5 VL - 2 ER - 999:1 retrieved:0 failed Now I see these weird ER tags, I expected them only at the adn of the wohle entry. Maybe that's also the reason why the docbook output also looks somehow strange: refdbc: getref :ID:=1 -t db50x -s ALL <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <bibliography xmlns="http://docbook.org/ns/docbook"> <title>Bibliography</title> <biblioentry xml:id="SCHOLZ_SOFTWARE_ENGINEERING_EMBEDDED"> <abbrev>SCHOLZ_SOFTWARE_ENGINEERING_EMBEDDED</abbrev> <biblioset relation="monogr"> <authorgroup> <author role="author"> <personname> <firstname>Peter</firstname> <surname>Scholz</surname> </personname> </author> </authorgroup> <biblioset relation="booktitle"> <title>Softwareentwicklung eingebetteter Systeme</title> </biblioset> <publisher> <publishername>Springer Verlag</publishername> <address>Berlin, Heidelberg</address> </publisher> <pubdate>2005</pubdate> </biblioset> <biblioid class="isbn">3-540-23405-5</biblioid> <biblioid class="doi">DOI:10.1007/3-540-27522-3 ER - ER -</biblioid> </biblioentry> </bibliography> 999:1 retrieved:0 failed What I'm missing is the edition tag and I also have these ER - intermixed. Is there something I did wrong? Regards, Stephan Gatzka |