Yet another tags editorial in Nature. I think they're pushing Connotea pretty hard... Of course, they may just be fans of the technology.
Nature editorial on tags
User login
Navigation
New forum topics
- Clinical Trials & Clinical Data Management-CDM + Project at Medwin Hospitals
- Final Semester Projects - Bioinformatics & Cheminformatics
- ISM 2009 Call for Papers: Special Track within EMS2009----ljh
- WiCOM 2009 Call for Papers: Sept. 24-26, 2009, Beijing, China----ljh
- Psychological Health Call for Papers: Special Session within iCBBE2009------ljh
Recommended Reading
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 11 guests online.
Syndicate
Powered By
Comments
Yep, the are "pushing
Yep, the are "pushing Connotea pretty hard". Still, the more of this kind of thing the better IMO ...
Connotea seems more than
Connotea seems more than adequate, for gathering and sharing the results of a venture into the biblio-scape for a specific topic of interest... but what happens if you want to upload there reference collections that you might already have ? Well, there's the RIS format upload option,,, beware though ! It needs for your RIS file to have a valid URL besides the "UR -" tag .... I use JabRef (open souce, Java, get from sourceforge) and I converted my references from BibTex -- that's what JabRef likes, check the convertion tools http://www.scripps.edu/~cdputnam/software/bibutils/bibutils.html , you have to go BibTex -> xml -> RIS .... I tried uploading to Connotea, so that I have them there and keep adding as I find stuff around, but it ** didn't work ** cause I was missing the right "UR -" tag... of course, cause my reference collection was pointing to local files .... so from now on, you all out there, try to make your ref collections to point on online resources for articles....
I agree that Connotea seems
I agree that Connotea seems more than adequate for *managing* citations on line, however there remains the problem of integrating those citations into an editing environment. EndNote is pitiful for managing citations however the reason it is still relevant is due to its tight integration with MS Word and citation formating capabilities.
While there are potential alternatives such as the Bibliographic Project for Open Office it is no where near mature enough to replace Word+EndNote. There are more technical solutions such as LaTeX, and DocBook but these are a headache if you are not familiar with the tools. I should know I wrote my PhD thesis using DocBook and had to build a custom solution (ad hoc rather) for managing my bibliography. I haven't looked into Bruce D'arcus' Citeproc project but that may be a solution...
In fact if anyone is interested in the general problem of Open Source EndNote alternatives the Bruce D'arcus'weblog is highly recommended. For example this post on Endnote alternatives, the comments don't give you much hope :( And this post one EndNote and XML ?.
Probably mentioned this before
... but my preferred solution is bibtex/latex, usually through emacs. Pybliographer is a nice management front end. Citations can be obtained from the ever-excellent HubMed as bibtex export.
This is very geeky I know, but it does work for me, and it has the advantage of not screwing up on multiple runs, as MS products and associated apps have been known to do.
Connotea
It does sound a little like publicity for Connotea but maybe without one of the big "brands" pushing for more information technology scientist will miss out on some useful tools.
This is one of the reasons,
This is one of the reasons, "brand", that I was excited to see Nature get behind "tagging". I patiently explained the benefites of tagging, collaborative citations/bookmarks, RSS etc. to my current boss with the hope that we might use these technologies in the lab. To no avail...
I just know that he is going to walk in one day (after seeing it in Nature) and proceed to tell me how wonderful it is. Doh !