I am using version 7.11. I have a record whose topic belongs in two separate folders. I have the record residing in one of these but would also like to see it in the other folder. How do I do this without creating a duplicate record?
Christopher
I am using version 7.11. I have a record whose topic belongs in two separate folders. I have the record residing in one of these but would also like to see it in the other folder. How do I do this without creating a duplicate record?
Christopher
Christopher,In v. 7
Christopher,
In v. 7 categories do that work. All your detailed organizational structure should be in categories rather than folders. This is different from version 6 and earlier. It might take a while to get used to, but ultimate it is a more powerful tool, because categories can be used to mark notes as well. Good luck
matt
So there is a need for
So there is a need for extensive organization in folders and even keywords for that matter. Yes, it will take a lot of getting used too.
Thanks for the information.
Christopher
actually your folder
actually your folder organization is mapped into a categories folder named <old folders>, so no organization is lost. I'm not sure there is a reason to have references in more than one folder in v7. As for keywords, I don't see why they would need reorganizing.
matt
Well if 'old folders' was
Well if 'old folders' was supposed to be used then why on earth would it be called 'old folders'. I figured this was something that resulted in the conversion from version 6 to 7. As a result, I delete the category 'old folders' and ran the rebuild database function. I did not lose any references or notes from doing so.
Christopher
No, you didn't lose any
No, you didn't lose any references, but you lost your organization system since, as you noted, the "many to many" capability of v6 folders no longer exists in v7. I am afraid that the documentation for v7 has not caught up to the programing, or at least it appears that way to me. I still haven't made the switch to v7 because I don't have time right now to rethink my organizational structure in this new paradigm. It does seem to me that categories are an improvement over folders ... but change is hard.
matt
Well fortunately I did not
Well fortunately I did not utilize the many-to-many relationship in version 6. The notes that I had created links with are still there so I definitely did not use anything. Yes, the category thing will definitely take some readjusting.
I was thinking I could make a category for each chapter and subheading of my dissertation. This would help me find references by topic now that I am ready to publish from it. I wish I would have done something like this when I was writing my dissertation. My bibliography is much larger than just my dissertation references so I cannot quickly find just those references if needed.
Thanks for your help.
that's the problem with
that's the problem with dissertations, it takes writing one to figure out how to do it. If I could start over from the beginning... wow, I'd do so much differently.
matt
In version 7, I see folders
In version 7, I see folders as cabinet folders in the physical world. I see categories as red, green, blue labels in the physical world. In physical world, a document can only exist in one cabinet folder, but you can stick many color labels on it. In Biblioscape, you can also organize those color labels in its own structure.
In older versions, the folders are virtual. I feel more comfortable when references, notes, etc. have an anchor (folder) instead of being in lots of virtual places.
I have to disagree. It is
I have to disagree. It is actually unreasonable to force an electronic bibliographical database to act like its physical counterpart when an electronic function is clearly superior to its physical cousin, so to speak. Why do I have to duplicate reference entries to put into different folders in Biblioscape just because in the real physical world there is no other choice? The ability to have multiple linked instances of references is a basic necessity for doing research electronically.
This leads me to another, albeit related, comment (or complaint, if you must have it). Biblioscape's main page suggests that the difference between the standard and the pro versions is the absence of the Task and Chart Modules. Quote: The Pro version has "all the features in Standard Edition plus a built-in database report writer and two extra modules: Tasks and Charts." In reality, it seems that the standard version also has Categories disabled. One would think it reasonable to expect that customers moving along Biblioscape's upgrade path would not lose any significant functions from the preceding version. A newer version should be more powerful, not less. This does not seem to be the case here with the categories module crippled in the standard version. One can make a case that the categories module is an entirely new function. Fair enough, but then please do not retire the ability to have multiple instances of the same record as found in version 6. I guess I could upgrade to the pro version, but I feel like Task and Chart are useless to me and it's an awful lot of money to pay an extra $100 for Categories which actually replaces something that is there in version 6 standard.
You don't have to make
You don't have to make duplicate. You can organize references with categories. It gave you the same benefit (many-to-many) as the folders in older version of Biblioscape. In version 7, you have an option to organize references with folders (for some users with simple needs) or with categories.
I remember I have mentioned this in another thread. The categories tab in all modules retain all the functions of the old folders in version 6. The categories tab is available in standard edition. So there is no feature loss. The categories module in version 7 has topic map like features, that is only available in the Pro edition. To organize records with categories, you don't need the categories module, just use the "categories" tab on the right pane will be enough.
You are right, Paul. My bad.
You are right, Paul. My bad. When I installed Version 7, there are folders called "categories," "charts," and "tasks" under the Folder List on the left. When I click on them, a message comes up and asks to upgrade to the Pro version. I assume, wrongly it turns out, that that's the categories you were talking about. In any case, as they say, I now put my comments under erasure.