Bibliography project
Jane McGary (Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:14:33 PST)
Rodger Whitlock wrote, The proper form of a relational database for a
bibliography is a
very difficult problem to solve. The data does not lend itself
readily or obviously to the relational model. Rather than try to
devise a home-brew solution, those interested are well advised to
conduct a careful and thorough literature search and determine what
solutions have been devised by more experienced people.
I am in fact in the process of doing that. I have an old friend who is a
specialist in this type of computing and have just sent him an outline of
what we need to do, and asked him to recommend models that have worked well
in similar situations.
Indeed, the planning will encompass the kinds of questions Rodger accuses
us of not having asked. I've already mentioned some of them. To reply to
his specific points:
(1) how complete is this bibliography to be?
It cannot be complete for the scientific literature, which can be accessed
through other tools already anyway. If it just gets the user to widely
accessible documentation, that seems like a good target. We need to compile
a list of the kinds of questions potential users are likely to need
answered, and then we can evaluate the coverage. In any case, some of the
entries have their own extensive bibliographies, and this can be mentioned
in the annotation.
(2) who is going to provide the data? and
I had envisioned this as a cooperative effort, with my own work as a
clearinghouse.
(3) who is going to exercise data quality control?
If I enter (or edit) the data and someone else proofs them, is that quality
control?
(4) in the long term, how are you going to ensure continuity of
support and function? The bulb literature is not static and any such
compilation will require ongoing work to keep it current.
That's why I was proposing it as an electronic entity, not a paper publication.
It is also worthwhile remembering that such indexes as Botanical
Abstracts exist, and no doubt some institutions (the RHS and Kew, in
particular) may have in-house indexes. What is the relationship of
the proposed bibliography to such existing databanks?
The proposed bibliography would not cover the same topic range as these,
though I envision some overlap. Don't you have to pay a subscription fee to
access Botanical Abstracts? Ours should be free.
Please -- this is still just a bundle of ideas. No need to attack them yet!
Jane McGary