Re: [Treebase-devel] curation workflow

[William P. <wil...@ya...>]

On Sep 19, 2009, at 12:45 PM, Ryan Scherle wrote:

> Thanks. I didn't realize that different portions of the interface used
> different methods to retrieve data. Is there a reason to keep it this
> way?

Probably not. The first was a simple nexus dump developed prior to  
Rutger developing the PhyloWS interface.

> I have found that Endnote makes it too easy to accidentally add
> irrelevant or duplicate citations to the database. So now, I think it
> may be best to keep the bibliographic information in the Google
> spreadsheet (and back it up periodically).

But that means making the spreadsheet a lot bigger -- I had deleted a  
number of columns so that it is more readable. I predict that a lot  
more errors will be introduced to the data if we are using a Google  
spreadsheet.

> When we have all of the
> citations, one person could go through the entire sheet to ensure
> consistency in journal names, etc. Does this sound reasonable? Or is
> there a way to disallow Endnote from adding new citations?

well, any new citation added to Endnote will not have a legacy  
TreeBASE study id number -- so it will be easy to spot when new  
records are added.  And I don't see why Endnote is any easier at  
creating new records than, say, a Google spreadsheet -- both allow it.

Alternatively, I have a Filemaker document that we could check-in/out  
of the svn. Filemaker can be set to disallow new records for certain  
users.

bp