List Archives >  Procite List Archive >  Archive by date >  This Month By Date >  This Month By Topic

ProCite's future

Search email archive for  

ProCite's future
Author: William S Peterson    Posted: Mon, 17 May 2004 21:35:03 -0400
I've been following the discussions on this list for several years about ProCite's lack of a viable Web-publishing solution and the program's possible demise. None of the solutions suggested so far seems completely satisfactory to me: in particular I find myself worrying about the survival of other proprietary database programs that are currently available, some of them from very small software outfits. I've made a considerable intellectual investment in my various ProCite databases, and I don't relish the idea of converting them to another format that will also become obsolete in a few years. The best long-term answer, I suspect, would be to move one's files over to a mainstream database program such as Access or FileMaker. I know at least the rudiments of designing a database in FileMaker, and it's fairly easy to create one with the same number of fields as ProCite and then import a ProCite file into it. But it would take some serious programming skills to figure out how to create a truly flexible keyword field, output styles, and sophisticated searches. I don't know whether it would, in the end, be possible in FileMaker to create a database that is more or less functionally equivalent to a ProCite database. (I am just assuming that cite-while-you-write [which I don't use] and Z39.5 searches [which I do use] would probably be beyond the capabilities of even the best-designed FileMaker database.) Has anyone done this sort of thing already? Would he/she care to give us a report on the possibilities in this direction? William S. Peterson University of Maryland

Re: ProCite's future
Author: Gijs Kessler    Posted: Tue, 18 May 2004 11:57:02 +0400
I have not exactly tried this, but I have also been thinking in this direction lately, and arrived at more or less the same conclusions; transferring the raw data to FileMaker Pro or Access, or even Excel for that matter, should not be much of a problem, but to get the same retrieval possibilities as in Pro-Cite could be impossible. Let me line up some of my thoughts re. transferring Pro-Cite data to Filemaker (I am working on Macs): - getting keyword-functions should be possible. I made a similar database for storing archival records in FileMaker pro where the keyword-field is a repeating field with a value-list attached to it. Searches can be performed on one keyword, or on any combination of keywords, irrespective of the order in which the keywords were inserted in the record to be found. The problem is, however, how to get the different keywords in ProCite field 45 into separate boxes within the repeating field in FileMaker. Another option would be to just get all the keywords in one field in FileMaker Pro, but that makes it impossible to insert more than one keyword using a value-list (which is essential for consistency), since the second keyword you insert would cancel the first one etc. Also, it makes searching more difficult, because FileMaker used to be unable to perform searches using Boolean operators for values in one and the same field, making it necessary to do two searches in a row to find records with a combination of two keywords, three searches to find records with three keywords etc. Perhaps, though, the latest version (7) of FileMaker Pro offers improvements in the search function which can solve this last problem. - Although I do not have the necessary programming skills, it is my feeling that getting a Cite-While you Write possibility should not be impossible. FileMaker Pro data can be retrieved from "outside" through ODBC, provided that the word processor you use supports ODBC (Word, e.g. does not, at least on the Mac). Also, I have studied the add-in ProCite places in Word for the CWYW function, and it appears to be written in Visual Basic for Applications, so probably something the like of it could be created to contact other programs from Word as well. - The real difficulty, I guess, lies in configuration files and output lists. Before I had ever heard of ProCite I tried making a very similar thing in the now long defunct HyperCard application. Technically, HyperCard offered the possibilities to create fields which rendered the information from other fields according to a programmed order, but in practice I never managed to solve all the problems following from the fact that the bibliographic data one processes are not of a uniform order (journals, monographs, manuscripts etc.). To get all of them right, one needs to program the configuration file using a host of conditions, which, then, turned out to be beyond my capabilities. Perhaps some of you with better programming skills can do something with these thoughts of a layman. In any case I think it is a good idea to keep on discussing these organisational issues. Gijs Kessler International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam > From: "William S. Peterson" "wsp" > Reply-To: PROCITE The Personal Bibliographic Software Discussion List > "PROCITE" > Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 21:35:03 -0400 > To: "PROCITE" > Subject: ProCite's future > > I've been following the discussions on this list for several years about > ProCite's lack of a viable Web-publishing solution and the program's > possible demise. None of the solutions suggested so far seems completely > satisfactory to me: in particular I find myself worrying about the > survival of other proprietary database programs that are currently > available, some of them from very small software outfits. I've made a > considerable intellectual investment in my various ProCite databases, > and I don't relish the idea of converting them to another format that > will also become obsolete in a few years. > > The best long-term answer, I suspect, would be to move one's files over > to a mainstream database program such as Access or FileMaker. I know at > least the rudiments of designing a database in FileMaker, and it's > fairly easy to create one with the same number of fields as ProCite and > then import a ProCite file into it. But it would take some serious > programming skills to figure out how to create a truly flexible keyword > field, output styles, and sophisticated searches. I don't know whether > it would, in the end, be possible in FileMaker to create a database that > is more or less functionally equivalent to a ProCite database. (I am > just assuming that cite-while-you-write [which I don't use] and Z39.5 > searches [which I do use] would probably be beyond the capabilities of > even the best-designed FileMaker database.) > > Has anyone done this sort of thing already? Would he/she care to give us > a report on the possibilities in this direction? > > William S. Peterson > University of Maryland

Re: ProCite's future = Biblioscape
Author: Juan Carlos Vergara    Posted: Tue, 18 May 2004 09:58:03 +0200
I'm user of ProCite since DOS versions... remember?. I have been using ProCite for permanent tasks and also just to manage the results of searches from online databases (just to print the results in a nice format). I have been using for myself and even I have recommended to some companies to organise internal information. As most of you I don't understand why RWP is not updated. I have discovered Biblioscape + Biblioweb http://www.biblioscape.com quite recently and I think that it is a very good alternative, I'd say that it is a better and stronger alternative, with good prospects. Any opinions about it? Thanks Juan Carlos Vergara CDE ----- Original Message ----- From: "William S. Peterson" "wsp" To: "PROCITE" Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 3:35 AM Subject: ProCite's future > I've been following the discussions on this list for several years about > ProCite's lack of a viable Web-publishing solution and the program's > possible demise. None of the solutions suggested so far seems completely > satisfactory to me: in particular I find myself worrying about the > survival of other proprietary database programs that are currently > available, some of them from very small software outfits. I've made a > considerable intellectual investment in my various ProCite databases, > and I don't relish the idea of converting them to another format that > will also become obsolete in a few years. > > The best long-term answer, I suspect, would be to move one's files over > to a mainstream database program such as Access or FileMaker. I know at > least the rudiments of designing a database in FileMaker, and it's > fairly easy to create one with the same number of fields as ProCite and > then import a ProCite file into it. But it would take some serious > programming skills to figure out how to create a truly flexible keyword > field, output styles, and sophisticated searches. I don't know whether > it would, in the end, be possible in FileMaker to create a database that > is more or less functionally equivalent to a ProCite database. (I am > just assuming that cite-while-you-write [which I don't use] and Z39.5 > searches [which I do use] would probably be beyond the capabilities of > even the best-designed FileMaker database.) > > Has anyone done this sort of thing already? Would he/she care to give us > a report on the possibilities in this direction? > > William S. Peterson > University of Maryland

ProCite's future - ACCESS and Foxpro
Author: David G Anderson    Posted: Tue, 18 May 2004 09:09:49 +0100
I have to concur with William Peterson that the best long term solution would be to find someone to invest time in creating a complex platform in ACCESS, Foxpro, or perhaps even better one of the more flexible database systems. Unfortunately I have little experience in this, but would be willing to invest resources to design the appropriate programming. Z39 searching can be conducted with other programmes and the results can be exported in MARC format, which can then be imported into a database programme. David G. Anderson Senior Lecturer Department of Anthropology G02 Edward Wright Building, Dunbar St. School of Social Science Old Aberdeen AB24 3QY SCOTLAND UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN http://www.abdn.ac.uk/anthropology/dga.shtml Tel: +44-1224-272770 Fax: +44-1224-272552 Email: "david.anderson"

Re: ProCite's future
Author: Louis Gabaude    Posted: Tue, 18 May 2004 16:24:59 -0700
I have quite the same feelings as William S. Peterson so I would appreciate any help for keeping the best of pro-Cite within another database which would not fall victim of the silly politicies of a company which does not choose to unify its products by the best of them. FileMaker Pro is marvellous but when will it be able to handle the functions of ProCite: modifications character by character, output to Word, etc. Louis Gabaude : >I've been following the discussions on this list for several years about >ProCite's lack of a viable Web-publishing solution and the program's >possible demise. None of the solutions suggested so far seems completely >satisfactory to me: in particular I find myself worrying about the >survival of other proprietary database programs that are currently >available, some of them from very small software outfits. I've made a >considerable intellectual investment in my various ProCite databases, >and I don't relish the idea of converting them to another format that >will also become obsolete in a few years. > >The best long-term answer, I suspect, would be to move one's files over >to a mainstream database program such as Access or FileMaker. I know at >least the rudiments of designing a database in FileMaker, and it's >fairly easy to create one with the same number of fields as ProCite and >then import a ProCite file into it. But it would take some serious >programming skills to figure out how to create a truly flexible keyword >field, output styles, and sophisticated searches. I don't know whether >it would, in the end, be possible in FileMaker to create a database that >is more or less functionally equivalent to a ProCite database. (I am >just assuming that cite-while-you-write [which I don't use] and Z39.5 >searches [which I do use] would probably be beyond the capabilities of >even the best-designed FileMaker database.) > >Has anyone done this sort of thing already? Would he/she care to give us >a report on the possibilities in this direction? > >William S. Peterson >University of Maryland Louis Gabaude 124/123 Soi 1 - Suraphon Niwet San Kamphaeng Road CHIANG MAI 50000 THAILANDE Tel. +66 53 24 72 63 Fax: +66 53 85 04 85 e-mail: "gabaudel" Ecole francaise d'Extreme-Orient: http://www.efeo.fr/

Re: ProCite's future
Author: Miguel Dias    Posted: Tue, 18 May 2004 11:02:30 +0100
Dear All, Although I'm a non-programmer, even with commercial DB software packages, I've had experiences with all the software Mr. Peterson mentions. Oh, and I am a librarian. I felt I had to comment because, as I identify very much with the general feeling about how ProCite is clearly being neglected in favor of lesser alternatives, I doubt very much the relational DB software pathway. As Mr. Peterson pointed out, some outstanding features like CWYW and Z39.50 would really difficult to implement by non-pros. But other less evident features would suffer, like the parsing ability essential for the high adaptability of ProCite's input and output, so I'm sure the overall result would be a poor substitute to even a crescently obsolete ProCite. My suggestion? Not the most feasible right away, but given one or two moderatly skilled programmers, quite easy and up to the task. Pick an already developed bibliographic rich core like the isis_dll library from Bireme/Unesco (available for free for the Windows platform and suitable for Delphi development, for instance) or the open source codebase of OpenIsis or any of the other related projects (IMHO, best for Unix/Open Source development), patch one of the available Z39.50 clients as an extension, dabble a little with MS Word macros for CWYW, and put it up for trial/use/comment. Overall, I estimate a six months task for the two programmers leisure ;) time, nothing really compared to the duration of the present wait for ProCite's update. Just my EUR 0,02... Miguel Dias Universidade do Algarve ----- Original Message ----- From: "William S. Peterson" "wsp" Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 2:35 AM Subject: ProCite's future > I've been following the discussions on this list for several years about > ProCite's lack of a viable Web-publishing solution and the program's > possible demise. None of the solutions suggested so far seems completely > satisfactory to me: in particular I find myself worrying about the > survival of other proprietary database programs that are currently > available, some of them from very small software outfits. I've made a > considerable intellectual investment in my various ProCite databases, > and I don't relish the idea of converting them to another format that > will also become obsolete in a few years. > > The best long-term answer, I suspect, would be to move one's files over > to a mainstream database program such as Access or FileMaker. I know at > least the rudiments of designing a database in FileMaker, and it's > fairly easy to create one with the same number of fields as ProCite and > then import a ProCite file into it. But it would take some serious > programming skills to figure out how to create a truly flexible keyword > field, output styles, and sophisticated searches. I don't know whether > it would, in the end, be possible in FileMaker to create a database that > is more or less functionally equivalent to a ProCite database. (I am > just assuming that cite-while-you-write [which I don't use] and Z39.5 > searches [which I do use] would probably be beyond the capabilities of > even the best-designed FileMaker database.) > > Has anyone done this sort of thing already? Would he/she care to give us > a report on the possibilities in this direction? > > William S. Peterson > University of Maryland

Re: ProCite's future
Author: Dinberg Donna    Posted: Tue, 18 May 2004 08:32:48 -0400
Folks, With all the talk lately about developing something, I have just sent off a challenge to the CODE4LIB list to see if anyone there is interested in developing an open-source, Windows-based app for this purpose. I don't know if any on that list watch this list, so I decided the time had come to cross-pollinate! I will report back if anything interesting comes out of it. Din. Donna Dinberg Systems Librarian/Analyst Library and Archives Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0N4 Voice: 613-995-9227 E-mail: "donna.dinberg" > -----Original Message----- > From: Miguel Dias "mailto:mxdias" > Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 6:03 AM > To: "PROCITE" > Subject: Re: ProCite's future > > > Dear All, > > Although I'm a non-programmer, even with commercial DB > software packages, I've had experiences with all the software > Mr. Peterson mentions. Oh, and I am a librarian. > <snip>

Procite's future
Author: Diana C Robinson    Posted: Tue, 18 May 2004 13:33:34 -0400
In response to the question posted by William Peterson "wsp" I've been looking at alternatives to Procite for a while now. We are resigned to migrating to CyberTools http://cybertoolsforlibraries.com/ sometime in the future. They are an inexpensive method of transferring records to a web-based catalog. Although there's no guarantee they'll be around forever, they've been around long enough to be trustworthy and knowledgeable. In the event we would ever need to migrate again, I'm confident that the CyberTools records would be standard enough (MARC and Z39.50-compliant) so that we wouldn't be stuck with unreadable data. The offer we have from CyberTools includes: - One-time set-up fee of $200 - Free conversion from Procite to their database format - $1800 a year for ASP web hosting us on a database they maintain (very desirable for us as we get no Systems support) - Another $90 a month if we want Z39.50-compliance (we do!) Unlike Procite, CyberTools is an integrated library management system. It includes cataloging, serials management, authority control, circulation, and reports. It would be esp. useful to medical libraries, as it uses MeSH and NLM tools. This all probably seems rather promotional, but like others we're still evaluating the options. I didn't much care for Biblioscape or the idea of a still-unproven product like Jyri Tarkpea's Sirvi program in Estonia. A fellow inFIRE consortium library was kind enough to recently put our Procite records on their website, but the results were disappointing. So if you've got a success story, let's hear it! Diana Robinson NYS Academy of Fire Science

Re: ProCite's future
Author: Eugene Fosnight    Posted: Tue, 18 May 2004 19:28:59 -0500
How about a open source app, such as PHP-mySQL? Last time I checked Windows was not open source. Gene Fosnight On May 18, 2004, at 7:32 AM, Dinberg Donna wrote: > Folks, > With all the talk lately about developing something, I have just sent > off a > challenge to the CODE4LIB list to see if anyone there is interested in > developing an open-source, Windows-based app for this purpose. I > don't know > if any on that list watch this list, so I decided the time had come to > cross-pollinate! I will report back if anything interesting comes out > of > it. > Din. > > Donna Dinberg > Systems Librarian/Analyst > Library and Archives Canada > Ottawa, ON K1A 0N4 > Voice: 613-995-9227 > E-mail: "donna.dinberg" > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Miguel Dias "mailto:mxdias" >> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 6:03 AM >> To: "PROCITE" >> Subject: Re: ProCite's future >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> Although I'm a non-programmer, even with commercial DB >> software packages, I've had experiences with all the software >> Mr. Peterson mentions. Oh, and I am a librarian. >> > <snip> >

Re: ProCite's future [Dias & Peterson]
Author: Bflores    Posted: Wed, 19 May 2004 16:21:51 +0930
These are interesting suggestions, to which I add some sites that compare presently available software. 1: Bibliography formatting software: an evaluation template by Francesco Dell'orso. [ Library master; ProCite; Endnote; Reference Manager; Papyrus; Biblioscope; Bookends] May 2004 <www.burioni.it/forum/ors_bfs> 2: Indexing software[listed by University of British Columbia, May 2004 under headings such as Back of book; open systems; ww indexing & thesaurus; SGML] <www.slais.ubc.ca/resources/indexing/software.html> 3: Software comparison sheet [Lotus; Access; Filemaker Pro; CDS-ISIS /DBtextworks &Webpublisher Pro.] 2004. Maxus are current Australian distributors of Inmagic DBtextworks & Webpublisher Pro, but the sheet is relatively unbiased. <www.maxus.net.au/compare.html> For what it's worth, a colleague, experienced in both CDS_ISIS & DBtextworks, in 1998 converted my 5000+ item, 12 field CDS_ISIS db to DBtextworks with little difficulty, but when in 2002, I converted a 385 item, 3 field ProCite 3 db to DBtextworks and exported it to ProCite5, it took me about 3 weeks. It worked well, but I wouldn't call the process easy, since it requires both experience in database design & knowledge of the terminologies of the source & destination. Bess Flores Victor Harbor, SAustralia ----- Original Message ----- From: "Miguel Dias" "mxdias" To: "PROCITE" Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 7:32 PM Subject: Re: ProCite's future .....My suggestion? Not the most feasible right away, but given one or two moderatly skilled programmers, quite easy and up to the task. Pick an already developed bibliographic rich core like the isis_dll library from Bireme/Unesco (available for free for the Windows platform and suitable for Delphi development, for instance) or the open source codebase of OpenIsis or any of the other related projects (IMHO, best for Unix/Open Source development), patch one of the available Z39.50 clients as an extension, dabble a little with MS Word macros for CWYW, and put it up for trial/use/comment..... > Miguel Dias > Universidade do Algarve > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William S. Peterson" "wsp" > Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 2:35 AM > Subject: ProCite's future ......The best long-term answer, I suspect, would be to move one's files over to a mainstream database program such as Access or FileMaker. I know at least the rudiments of designing a database in FileMaker, and it's fairly easy to create one with the same number of fields as ProCite and then import a ProCite file into it. But it would take some serious programming skills to figure out how to create a truly flexible keyword field, output styles, and sophisticated searches.... > > > > William S. Peterson > > University of Maryland

Re: ProCite's future
Author: Bob Lambert    Posted: Wed, 19 May 2004 08:58:20 -0400
I've noticed that most responders to this thread have said something like "I'm not a software developer, BUT this should be doable." I am a software developer and a user of these products, and the thought of regenerating an application to equal the currently available capability is terrifying. This is not a "no-brainer". Once it is developed, who is going to support it? The development process itself will mean thousands of hours of work. That's ignoring the fact that requirements must be written, someone must make sure the end-product meets the requirements, that the end-product must be tested at several different points in the development process, and then the resultant product needs to be maintained over time as the inevitable bugs are discovered, scheduled for repair and fixed. I fear that the tenor of this discussion so far is "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." This is not a trivial task and is guaranteed to generate more frustration over a longer period of time than trying to work to improve the current product. The discussion is ignoring the enormous investment in time, money, and intellectual energy required to develop a product of this complexity. Open source only works when there's a dedicated group of people willing to invest all of those things in the long-term success of a product. I haven't seen any discussion from anyone who fits that description. If you're out there and think you can make it happen, let's hear your opinion. Mine is mine alone and perhaps somewhat skewed from thirty years of large software project development experience. This is not meant to be a criticism. I get frustrated with ProCite products as well. But your concern must be tempered with the realities of getting a big, complex software product to market, even if that market is free, open-source. Best, Bob Lambert -----Original Message----- From: PROCITE The Personal Bibliographic Software Discussion List "mailto:PROCITE" On Behalf Of Eugene Fosnight Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 7:29 PM To: "PROCITE" Subject: Re: ProCite's future How about a open source app, such as PHP-mySQL? Last time I checked Windows was not open source. Gene Fosnight On May 18, 2004, at 7:32 AM, Dinberg Donna wrote: > Folks, > With all the talk lately about developing something, I have just sent > off a challenge to the CODE4LIB list to see if anyone there is > interested in developing an open-source, Windows-based app for this > purpose. I don't know > if any on that list watch this list, so I decided the time had come to > cross-pollinate! I will report back if anything interesting comes out > of > it. > Din. > > Donna Dinberg > Systems Librarian/Analyst > Library and Archives Canada > Ottawa, ON K1A 0N4 > Voice: 613-995-9227 > E-mail: "donna.dinberg" > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Miguel Dias "mailto:mxdias" >> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 6:03 AM >> To: "PROCITE" >> Subject: Re: ProCite's future >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> Although I'm a non-programmer, even with commercial DB software >> packages, I've had experiences with all the software Mr. Peterson >> mentions. Oh, and I am a librarian. >> > <snip> >

Re: ProCite's future
Author: Copeland, Laurel    Posted: Wed, 19 May 2004 08:13:14 -0500
Well said! Thank you for this perspective. Laurel Copeland Data Analyst/Programmer VA Ann Arbor -----Original Message----- From: Bob Lambert "mailto:ral6" Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 8:58 AM To: "PROCITE" Subject: Re: ProCite's future I've noticed that most responders to this thread have said something like "I'm not a software developer, BUT this should be doable." I am a software developer and a user of these products, and the thought of regenerating an application to equal the currently available capability is terrifying. This is not a "no-brainer". Once it is developed, who is going to support it? The development process itself will mean thousands of hours of work. That's ignoring the fact that requirements must be written, someone must make sure the end-product meets the requirements, that the end-product must be tested at several different points in the development process, and then the resultant product needs to be maintained over time as the inevitable bugs are discovered, scheduled for repair and fixed. I fear that the tenor of this discussion so far is "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." This is not a trivial task and is guaranteed to generate more frustration over a longer period of time than trying to work to improve the current product. The discussion is ignoring the enormous investment in time, money, and intellectual energy required to develop a product of this complexity. Open source only works when there's a dedicated group of people willing to invest all of those things in the long-term success of a product. I haven't seen any discussion from anyone who fits that description. If you're out there and think you can make it happen, let's hear your opinion. Mine is mine alone and perhaps somewhat skewed from thirty years of large software project development experience. This is not meant to be a criticism. I get frustrated with ProCite products as well. But your concern must be tempered with the realities of getting a big, complex software product to market, even if that market is free, open-source. Best, Bob Lambert -----Original Message----- From: PROCITE The Personal Bibliographic Software Discussion List "mailto:PROCITE" On Behalf Of Eugene Fosnight Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 7:29 PM To: "PROCITE" Subject: Re: ProCite's future How about a open source app, such as PHP-mySQL? Last time I checked Windows was not open source. Gene Fosnight On May 18, 2004, at 7:32 AM, Dinberg Donna wrote: > Folks, > With all the talk lately about developing something, I have just sent > off a challenge to the CODE4LIB list to see if anyone there is > interested in developing an open-source, Windows-based app for this > purpose. I don't know if any on that list watch this list, so I > decided the time had come to cross-pollinate! I will report back if > anything interesting comes out of it. > Din. > > Donna Dinberg > Systems Librarian/Analyst > Library and Archives Canada > Ottawa, ON K1A 0N4 > Voice: 613-995-9227 > E-mail: "donna.dinberg" > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Miguel Dias "mailto:mxdias" >> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 6:03 AM >> To: "PROCITE" >> Subject: Re: ProCite's future >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> Although I'm a non-programmer, even with commercial DB software >> packages, I've had experiences with all the software Mr. Peterson >> mentions. Oh, and I am a librarian. >> > <snip> >

Re: ProCite's future
Author: Bob Lambert    Posted: Wed, 19 May 2004 09:42:27 -0400
I am personally familiar with only one paradigm which has worked very effectively. Adobe has a users advisory group which meets electronically and in person (at Adobe's expense) on a regular basis to discuss new products, problems with current products, and new techologies. I don't know if the ProCite folks have a similar group, but perhaps an organized group of users, represented very ably by those on this listserv could propose the establishment of something like that. It only works if the users AND the developer feel that they have ownership in a joint product and both take their responsibilities seriously. b

Re: ProCite's future reloaded
Author: Miguel Dias    Posted: Thu, 20 May 2004 11:51:03 +0100
Dear list, As one of the mentioned responders, I come to the front on behalf of what I said. :) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Lambert" "ral6" Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 1:58 PM Subject: Re: ProCite's future > I've noticed that most responders to this thread have > said something like "I'm not a software developer, BUT > this should be doable." Let me say it again: I am not a programmer (appart from a few DOS batch jobs...). What I am is a lurker in many a bibliographic programming fora (for instance, in the OSS4LIB & XML4LIB lists) and have been doing it for quite a while... And I sustain my claim. Altough laboriously, I know I could do part of what I proposed, using the ISIS formatting language. To what point? It would only be of use to myself and most of it I can do with ProCite as it is anyway. On a side note, ISIS is going Open Source (www.unesco.org/isis) and there a z39.50 implementation to work with it called ZISIS (http://uncleaung.com/zisis/), which I haven't tried. > I am a software developer and a user of these products, > and the thought of regenerating an application to equal > the currently available capability is terrifying. This is > not a "no-brainer". Once it is developed, who is going to > support it? The development process itself will mean thousands > of hours of work. That's ignoring the fact that requirements > must be written, someone must make sure the end-product meets > the requirements, that the end-product must be tested at several > different points in the development process, and then the > resultant product needs to be maintained over time as the > inevitable bugs are discovered, scheduled for repair and fixed. It would be dumb as well as rude to contest you on your field of expertise, and I will not be doing it. My only question is, if that's such a difficult task how come one finds software project after software project, started from scratch I would think, trying to do the same basic things, time and time again? Don't get me wrong, I am not defending the status quo, goodness no. I am more inclined toward a 3 Rs aproach: reduce, reuse and recycle. I wish my job would permit me to learn the idioms of the piles of code lying arround the Internet, so I could put my work where my mouth is (or rather, my hands)... > I fear that the tenor of this discussion so far is "throwing > the baby out with the bathwater." > This is not a trivial task and is guaranteed to generate more > frustration over a longer period of time than trying > to work to improve the current product. > The discussion is ignoring the enormous investment in time, > money, and intellectual energy required to develop a product > of this complexity. > Open source only works when there's a dedicated group of people > willing to invest all of those things in the long-term success > of a product. I haven't seen any discussion from anyone who > fits that description. If you're out there and think you > can make it happen, let's hear your opinion. Mine is mine alone > and perhaps somewhat skewed from thirty years of large software > project development experience. Open Source works mostly, IMHO, because knowledgeable people take the time to get to know, explore and improve on other people's ideas and code, even if they do it as a one time shot. What I proposed issues from this conception. If it takes another ISI to build an alternative to ProCite, I am throwing the towell right now. > This is not meant to be a criticism. I get frustrated with ProCite > products as well. But your concern must be tempered with the > realities of getting a big, complex software product to market, > even if that market is free, open-source. > Best, > Bob Lambert Criticism is good. Debate flows, positions are defined, views are exchanged, understanding blooms. ;) We all have our concerns, but most of the time they just get submerged by our duties. I guess we'll not be increasing our demands. Thank you for sharing your opinion. Miguel Dias Universidade do Algarve > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Miguel Dias "mailto:mxdias" > >> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 6:03 AM > >> To: "PROCITE" > >> Subject: Re: ProCite's future > >> > >> Dear All, > >> > >> Although I'm a non-programmer, even with commercial DB software > >> packages, I've had experiences with all the software Mr. Peterson > >> mentions. Oh, and I am a librarian. > >> > > <snip> >

Re: ProCite's future reloaded
Author: Dinberg Donna    Posted: Thu, 20 May 2004 07:44:34 -0400
Maybe I should also confess to not being a programmer? ;) There was one response to my message to the CODE4LIB list. I asked for but did not receive permission to copy that response here; so I shall paraphrase, not meaning to offend or misrepresent ... and certainly hoping not to! The respondent mentioned: ============================================== Bruce D'Argus' blog <http://netapps.muohio.edu/movabletype/darcusb/darcusb/> discusses bib metadata. Bruce promotes adding bib support to OpenOffice <http://bibliographic.openoffice.org/>. "Simon Fraser University has a very nifty web option called Citation Manager" <http://stalefish.lib.sfu.ca/CitationManager/> Linkages between ProCite and apps like Word invoke "COM bridges and other messy platform-specific plumbing." The respondent warned about the difficulty in achieving close integration with apps such as Word (high levels of expertise needed). See the Research Task Pane <http://www.devx.com/codemag/Article/18214> as an optional approach, using web to make the connect with word processing. ===================================================== There seem to be only a few developers interested in this particular issue. Perhaps something to consider is a direct approach, with a specific proposal for development, to an interested developer from this needy community. This community has already shown its willingness to pay for such a product; I expect that would continue with another product, were a suitable product to appear. In response to the suggestion that this group approach ISI as an "organized group of users" to ask for changes: this group has, in effect, been doing that both through this forum and individually for a number of years. It does not seem to have made a difference. I don't believe ISI will change its corporate mind on the direction in which it seems headed vis-a-vis ProCite. Din. Donna Dinberg Systems Librarian/Analyst Library and Archives Canada "donna.dinberg" <Opinions above are totally mine and do not represent those of my employer. Usual disclaimers apply.>

Re: ProCite's future reloaded
Author: Doug Morrison-Cleary    Posted: Thu, 20 May 2004 15:31:47 -0500
I find it fascinating that this same conversation is happening in a number of places at the moment... If people are becoming serious about needing to find an alternative to Procite, then there seem to be two projects that deserve a lot of support from this community. [Refdb] The first of these is refdb <http://refdb.sourceforge.net/>. It is an Open Source project that has been under constant development for over three years now. It is a mature project, is designed primarily as an institutional/departmental/workgroup installation, and works on a large variety of platforms including Windows, Linux, MacOSX, and the BSDs. Refdb can be used by the solo researcher - it does require some skill, though, to install well. As a large scale implementation it is easily scalable to hundreds of thousands of records or more and is not hard for an experienced network/database admin to run. The greatest con with refdb currently is that cite while you write facilities for MS Word and Corel WordPerfect are lacking. (In fact, WP could be used with refdb if one was using the sgml/xml interface that has been present in WP for years. Refdb is designed to easily add appropriate elements into both DocBook and TEI documents.) I would guess that some sort of cite while you write for Word or WP or other wordprocessors feature could be added to refdb given sufficient interest and support! Again, refdb is a mature and well supported, standards based bibliographic project that is well worth looking into. [OpenOffice.org Bibliographic Project] The other project is only just moving out of the proof of concept stage now and is the bibliographic project for OpenOffice.org. Check out the project's site at <http://bibliographic.openoffice.org>. This project aims for tight integration with OpenOffice.org (and, consequently, with StarOffice, the commercial version). With OOo being available on a large number of platforms, this project also is very cross-platform orientated. It is also hoped that the project will also be usable with other wordprocessors. It needs to be recognized that this will probably never include MS Word, though. The current direction of the project is in a Java-based implementation, though a C-based implementation may be a long term possibility. Again, this project is currently at a preliminary stage and is actively looking for coders! While the current timeline is of the order of a year or more before a working system is in place, that could be sped along if an institution or two, or an avid coder or two was prepared to commit some resources to the project. [Conclusions] There are a number of other, especially open source and/or *nix based, projects around. Sixpack and Pybibliographic seem to be two of the more mature. There was a document on the OpenOffice.org Bibliographic project site that gave a good summary of the bibliographic software available today (though it didn't mention Procite!!!!). That file seems to have disappeared! However, I feel both of the above projects are the ones that hold the most promise long-term. And both would be good investments for either institutions or individual coders. Any of us who use or have used Procite and are now in the market for a replacement should consider strongly getting behind one or both of these projects. Hope this helps as we lament the eventual and seemingly inevitable demise of Procite. Doug Morrison-Cleary On Thu, 20 May 2004 07:44:34 -0400, Dinberg Donna "donna.dinberg" wrote: >Maybe I should also confess to not being a programmer? ;) > >There was one response to my message to the CODE4LIB list. I asked for but >did not receive permission to copy that response here; so I shall >paraphrase, not meaning to offend or misrepresent ... and certainly hoping >not to! > >The respondent mentioned: > >============================================== >Bruce D'Argus' blog <http://netapps.muohio.edu/movabletype/darcusb/darcusb/> >discusses bib metadata. Bruce promotes adding bib support to OpenOffice ><http://bibliographic.openoffice.org/>. > >"Simon Fraser University has a very nifty web option called Citation >Manager" <http://stalefish.lib.sfu.ca/CitationManager/> > >Linkages between ProCite and apps like Word invoke "COM bridges and other >messy platform-specific plumbing." The respondent warned about the >difficulty in achieving close integration with apps such as Word (high >levels of expertise needed). > >See the Research Task Pane <http://www.devx.com/codemag/Article/18214> as an >optional approach, using web to make the connect with word processing. >=====================================================

Re: ProCite's future reloaded
Author: Doug M-C    Posted: Thu, 20 May 2004 15:54:38 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [Received these further notes from Bruce D'Arcus "bdarcus" regarding OpenOffice.org (and refdb below):] On May 20, 2004, at 10:54 AM, Doug Morrison-Cleary wrote: > If people are becoming serious about needing to find an > alternative to Procite, then there seem to be two projects that > deserve a lot of support from this community. In one of the messages forwarded, someone mentioned my weblog. Having been in the position that many ProCite users are in and thought about a way out for a long time, I suggest reading through it from the beginning ;-) http://netapps.muohio.edu/movabletype/archives/darcusb/darcusb/ 000059.html Take home point is forget about commercial vendors, *especially* ISI. Think open source. I'm now the co-project lead for the OpenOffice bib project, and I really believe there's a lot of possibilities here. I suggest people take a look. http://bibliographic.openoffice.org/ The plan is to base it on MODS, the new XML Schema from the Library of Congress. Not only is it free and open library-compatible data, but it has a substantially richer and better data model than what you see in Endnote et al. Work with archival manuscripts or digital sources and find yourself frustrated with how to enter your records in Endnote or ProCite? MODS is your salvation! The project has attracted some knowledgeable developers (though could use more), as well as the attention of Sun. I'm actually working on a proposal with an engineer there to add citation support to the file format itself. BTW, there's a third related project that isn't sexy, but may well be important in facilitating innovation: http://www.silmaril.ie/bibliox/ It uses XSLT to handle formatting of XML documents. Aside from perhaps using it with the OpenOffice project to handle formatting, there's a guy right now trying to get it work with Word 2003. In fact, I just blogged about it: http://netapps.muohio.edu/movabletype/archives/darcusb/darcusb/ 000159.html In fact, I've put together a citation schema based on the OpenOffice proposal that can now be used with Word too. Bruce PS - Last name is "D'Arcus" Art, note the c ;-) [and regarding refdb:] It's totally free and open source, is based on bullet-proof open source database technology, and is nicely done. It still needs some additional features for social science and humanities scholars, but otherwise all you really need to do is throw a PHP or Perl programmer at it for a couple of days and you can have your own customized web portal. Better than commercial alternatives, and much cheaper. All I'd ask is that if people do develop web frontends they release the code back to the refdb project so others can take advantage of it. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkCtGw4ACgkQxsx9vtXMPo88sgCfYBadhyR23Gdx9ODEj25/ugJx 8/sAn1azhfV4o1CY7P0KtqW5IKZA9Lag =cgPT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: ProCite's future reloaded
Author: Doug M-C    Posted: Thu, 20 May 2004 11:07:31 -0500
Don't know if this'll make it to the list Doug, but you can forward it if not. For that matter, I'd love to see this posted to the Endnote list (though it's moderated). On May 20, 2004, at 10:54 AM, Doug Morrison-Cleary wrote: > If people are becoming serious about needing to find an > alternative to Procite, then there seem to be two projects that > deserve a lot of support from this community. In one of the messages forwarded, someone mentioned my weblog. Having been in the position that many ProCite users are in and thought about a way out for a long time, I suggest reading through it from the beginning ;-) http://netapps.muohio.edu/movabletype/archives/darcusb/darcusb/ 000059.html Take home point is forget about commercial vendors, *especially* ISI. Think open source. I'm now the co-project lead for the OpenOffice bib project, and I really believe there's a lot of possibilities here. I suggest people take a look. http://bibliographic.openoffice.org/ The plan is to base it on MODS, the new XML Schema from the Library of Congress. Not only is it free and open library-compatible data, but it has a substantially richer and better data model than what you see in Endnote et al. Work with archival manuscripts or digital sources and find yourself frustrated with how to enter your records in Endnote or ProCite? MODS is your salvation! The project has attracted some knowledgeable developers (though could use more), as well as the attention of Sun. I'm actually working on a proposal with an engineer there to add citation support to the file format itself. BTW, there's a third related project that isn't sexy, but may well be important in facilitating innovation: http://www.silmaril.ie/bibliox/ It uses XSLT to handle formatting of XML documents. Aside from perhaps using it with the OpenOffice project to handle formatting, there's a guy right now trying to get it work with Word 2003. In fact, I just blogged about it: http://netapps.muohio.edu/movabletype/archives/darcusb/darcusb/ 000159.html In fact, I've put together a citation schema based on the OpenOffice proposal that can now be used with Word too. Bruce PS - Last name is "D'Arcus" Art, note the c ;-)

Re: ProCite's future reloaded
Author: Doug M-C    Posted: Thu, 20 May 2004 11:05:40 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [Not sure that this went through the first time!] I find it fascinating that this same conversation is happening in a number of places at the moment... If people are becoming serious about needing to find an alternative to Procite, then there seem to be two projects that deserve a lot of support from this community. [Refdb] The first of these is refdb <http://refdb.sourceforge.net/>. It is an Open Source project that has been under constant development for over three years now. It is a mature project, is designed primarily as an institutional/departmental/workgroup installation, and works on a large variety of platforms including Windows, Linux, MacOSX, and the BSDs. Refdb can be used by the solo researcher - it does require some skill, though, to install well. As a large scale implementation it is easily scalable to hundreds of thousands of records or more and is not hard for an experienced network/database admin to run. The greatest con with refdb currently is that cite while you write facilities for MS Word and Corel WordPerfect are lacking. (In fact, WP could be used with refdb if one was using the sgml/xml interface that has been present in WP for years. Refdb is designed to easily add appropriate elements into both DocBook and TEI documents.) I would guess that some sort of cite while you write for Word or WP or other wordprocessors feature could be added to refdb given sufficient interest and support! Again, refdb is a mature and well supported, standards based bibliographic project that is well worth looking into. [OpenOffice.org Bibliographic Project] The other project is only just moving out of the proof of concept stage now and is the bibliographic project for OpenOffice.org. Check out the project's site at <http://bibliographic.openoffice.org>. This project aims for tight integration with OpenOffice.org (and, consequently, with StarOffice, the commercial version). With OOo being available on a large number of platforms, this project also is very cross-platform orientated. It is also hoped that the project will also be usable with other wordprocessors. It needs to be recognized that this will probably never include MS Word, though. The current direction of the project is in a Java-based implementation, though a C-based implementation may be a long term possibility. Again, this project is currently at a preliminary stage and is actively looking for coders! While the current timeline is of the order of a year or more before a working system is in place, that could be sped along if an institution or two, or an avid coder or two was prepared to commit some resources to the project. [Conclusions] There are a number of other, especially open source and/or *nix based, projects around. Sixpack and Pybibliographic seem to be two of the more mature. There was a document on the OpenOffice.org Bibliographic project site that gave a good summary of the bibliographic software available today (though it didn't mention Procite!!!!). That file seems to have disappeared! However, I feel both of the above projects are the ones that hold the most promise long-term. And both would be good investments for either institutions or individual coders. Any of us who use or have used Procite and are now in the market for a replacement should consider strongly getting behind one or both of these projects. Hope this helps as we lament the eventual and seemingly inevitable demise of Procite. Doug Morrison-Cleary On Thu, 20 May 2004 07:44:34 -0400 Dinberg Donna "donna.dinberg" wrote: > Maybe I should also confess to not being a programmer? ;) > > There was one response to my message to the CODE4LIB list. I > asked for but did not receive permission to copy that response > here; so I shall paraphrase, not meaning to offend or > misrepresent ... and certainly hoping not to! > > The respondent mentioned: > > ============================================== > Bruce D'Argus' blog > <http://netapps.muohio.edu/movabletype/darcusb/darcusb/> > discusses bib metadata. Bruce promotes adding bib support to > OpenOffice<http://bibliographic.openoffice.org/>. > > "Simon Fraser University has a very nifty web option called > Citation Manager" <http://stalefish.lib.sfu.ca/CitationManager/> > > Linkages between ProCite and apps like Word invoke "COM bridges > and other messy platform-specific plumbing." The respondent > warned about the difficulty in achieving close integration with > apps such as Word (high levels of expertise needed). > > See the Research Task Pane > <http://www.devx.com/codemag/Article/18214> as an optional > approach, using web to make the connect with word > processing.===================================================== +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Doug Morrison-Cleary, OSL <www.hildormen.org> Email: <lists AT hildormen DOT org> Key ID: D5CC3E8F +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Email, signature, & copyright policies: <http://hildormen.net/policies.html> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkCs11QACgkQxsx9vtXMPo+kLwCeMTwI/bwoH45XtveMxEAhUPrM zfEAoIA/TpIpv+pvcq70jT5+QH6OJ2af =a6Pl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Previous by date: Re: from procite to endnot, Janice Redington Ballo
Next by date: Re: ProCite's future, Gijs Kessler
Previous thread: from procite to endnot, Lise Sedrez
Next thread: ProCite's future,  William S Peterson