Re: [Refdb-users] Importing RisX into RefDB

[Bruce D'A. <bd...@fa...>]

On Friday, April 25, 2003, at 12:26  AM, Alan Anderson wrote:

> I understand your point, and I agree that this would be beneficial IF 
> we were creating a new
> datatype, but the question still remains "who determines how the name 
> is converted to RIS and stored
> in the database?"

The RIS spec itself.  The spec is quite clear about what each specific 
field is to be used for.  A book editor is A2.  Likewise, a recipient 
is -- or rather should be -- also A2.  In neither case are these 
"authors," even though they serve the same structural role.  That they 
are labeled as such is just an unfortunate consequence of the 
limitations of the plain text tagging of RIS.

I'm no DB or coding expert, but is it even necessary to store the 
attribute info in the database?  I'm suggesting this stuff be added so 
that someone can sit down with an XML editor and easily and *reliably* 
enter references.  I do not think the existing DTD will make this easy.

>   After all, RefDB is using RIS as its data model.  If all of this 
> logic is placed
> in the DTD, you force RefDB to have to convert it.  So, if RefDB 
> chooses to store the editor "role"
> into the A2 field in the database, then we are forced to live with 
> that, and anyone who has been
> storing this in A3 will have to convert all of their references.

This would be true anyway, because they are using the wrong field as 
defined in the spec.  In RISX, the A3 field will map to the author tag 
in the "set" element, while A2 to the same tag in the "publication" 
element.  I still believe what I am suggesting requires no change to 
the data model, and will make life easier for anyone who has to enter 
references without a GUI.

Bruce