List Archives >  Reference Manager List Archive >  Archive by date >  This Month By Date >  This Month By Topic

Field [11] in Electronic citation

Search email archive for  

Field [11] in Electronic citation
Author: Gerhard Englert    Posted: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:17:08 +0200
hi all, preparing an output style I get deeper into "fields and formats". Now I ran into a question I find no answer to: What did the RM-folks intend, when they made [field 11] mandatory for ELECTRONIC CITATIONS? - did they plan, we should enter the URL here (_AND_ in [33]??) or - should I type "WEB" or "BLANK" or what else??? The question is important, since most E-citations I know, are "monographic", which means, they have no "journal", this means no "source" involved. But many have some kind of publisher and pub-place, they are more "book, whole" than "journal". To print the necessary URL I had to add field[33] into the output-style. But then you have an unnecessary but mandatory field [11]???? If on the other hand, I have to put the URL into [11], what good is a ref-type "Electronc Citations" ?????? How would you enter this into RM?: Hachmöller G (2001) Marginality in East Germany - a case study [online]. Braunschweig : FAL, 14 p, zu finden in <http://www.bal.fal.de/download/paper_IGU_kurz.pdf (Volltext)> [zitiert am 11.12.2001] One more problem: The source in this case is a PDF, which is field [34], my OS so far prints only URL[33]. If I put [33] _and_ [34] into my output style and both fields are filled in the reference data, then both will show up - which is wrong. Or is there a way to make "if-than-decisions" in an OS ????? Thanks for any help of the user-experts OR ARE THERE ANY EXPERTS AT RM ITSELF???? best regards Gerhard Englert gerhard.englert_at_fal.de

Field [11] in Electronic citation
Author: Gerhard Englert    Posted: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:13:04 +0200
hi all, I wrote before: >preparing an output style I get deeper into "fields and formats". Now I >ran into a question I find no answer to: What did the RM-folks intend, >when they made [field 11] mandatory for ELECTRONIC CITATIONS? AND now I found "TOOLS / FIELD AND TYPE EDIT" which at least allowed me to take the "MANDATORY" of field[11], which is quite a relief. But I am still _NOT_ happy, since most users will (and should) simply accept fields and ref types as they are, since they are more than busy in doing their research work. RM should be help not burden for them. But how can a software be of use for thousands of users and work successfully with output styles, if so elementary ref types as "ELECTRONIC CITATION" are so badly or not at all defined. How should anyone use them????? And as bad: No explanation is given anywhere, what RM thought, that it would be a correct input to specific ref types. How should usage and software ever cooperate, if no interpretations are given anywhere?? OR DID I OVERLOOK AN IMPORTANT SOURCE OF INSIGHT INTO RM SOFTWARE STRATEGIES? Any info would be greatly appreciated. best regards Gerhard Englert gerhard.englert_at_fal.de

Re: Field [11] in Electronic citation
Author: Maria Riviere    Posted: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 08:55:39 -0400
hi all, preparing an output style I get deeper into "fields and formats". Now I ran into a question I find no answer to: What did the RM-folks intend, when they made [field 11] mandatory for ELECTRONIC CITATIONS? - did they plan, we should enter the URL here (_AND_ in [33]??) or - should I type "WEB" or "BLANK" or what else??? The question is important, since most E-citations I know, are "monographic", which means, they have no "journal", this means no "source" involved. But many have some kind of publisher and pub-place, they are more "book, whole" than "journal". To print the necessary URL I had to add field[33] into the output-style. But then you have an unnecessary but mandatory field [11]???? If on the other hand, I have to put the URL into [11], what good is a ref-type "Electronc Citations" ?????? How would you enter this into RM?: Hachm=F6ller G (2001) Marginality in East Germany - a case study = [online]. Braunschweig : FAL, 14 p, zu finden in < http://www.bal.fal.de/download/paper_IGU_kurz.pdf <http://www.bal.fal.de/download/paper_IGU_kurz.pdf> (Volltext)> [zitiert am 11.12.2001] One more problem: The source in this case is a PDF, which is field = [34], my OS so far prints only URL[33]. If I put [33] _and_ [34] into my output style and both fields are filled in the reference data, then both will show = up - which is wrong. Or is there a way to make "if-than-decisions" in an OS ????? Thanks for any help of the user-experts OR ARE THERE ANY EXPERTS AT RM ITSELF???? best regards Gerhard Englert gerhard.englert_at_fal.de

RE: Field [11] in Electronic citation
Author: Popham, Karyn    Posted: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 18:10:19 -0500
Gerhard, This has probably been answered, but in case it hasn't-- I think the problem here is that most output styles don't have the RefType electronic citation formatted--or it's formatted for a version of RefMan that didn't have URLs available in a separate field 33. So I think they took what seemed the simpler way out (and may be, for many users) and required you to put the URL in field 11 so that existing output styles would work. (For example, "Generic" almost always has Field 11 in it, so if the URL is in field 11, SOMETHING approximately useful shows up in the bibliography.) One of the things on my infinite "to do" list is to go through, change all the output styles that include electronic citation so that they access field 33 instead of field 11, and then get all those URLs out of my "journals" synonym list! Karyn Popham Reference Wrangler Center for Health Promotion and Prevention Research School of Public Health University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston 713-500-9665 -----Original Message----- From: Gerhard Englert Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 4:17 AM To: /> Subject: <RefMan> Field [11] in Electronic citation hi all, preparing an output style I get deeper into "fields and formats". Now I ran into a question I find no answer to: What did the RM-folks intend, when they made [field 11] mandatory for ELECTRONIC CITATIONS? - did they plan, we should enter the URL here (_AND_ in [33]??) or - should I type "WEB" or "BLANK" or what else??? The question is important, since most E-citations I know, are "monographic", which means, they have no "journal", this means no "source" involved. But many have some kind of publisher and pub-place, they are more "book, whole" than "journal". To print the necessary URL I had to add field[33] into the output-style. But then you have an unnecessary but mandatory field [11]???? If on the other hand, I have to put the URL into [11], what good is a ref-type "Electronc Citations" ?????? How would you enter this into RM?: Hachmöller G (2001) Marginality in East Germany - a case study [online]. Braunschweig : FAL, 14 p, zu finden in <http://www.bal.fal.de/download/paper_IGU_kurz.pdf (Volltext)> [zitiert am 11.12.2001] One more problem: The source in this case is a PDF, which is field [34], my OS so far prints only URL[33]. If I put [33] _and_ [34] into my output style and both fields are filled in the reference data, then both will show up - which is wrong. Or is there a way to make "if-than-decisions" in an OS ????? Thanks for any help of the user-experts OR ARE THERE ANY EXPERTS AT RM ITSELF???? best regards Gerhard Englert gerhard.englert_at_fal.de

Previous by date: RE: Comments on RefMan 11 and Needs for RefMan 12?,  Becky Skidmore
Next by date: Field [11] in Electronic citation,  Gerhard Englert
Previous thread: En-dash between the page numbers?,  Weir, Sheila
Next thread: Field [11] in Electronic citation,  Gerhard Englert