Support for cross-references instead of "related"

Arithmeticus
Many times, when composing a bibliographic record, I would like to refer or link to another bibliographic record in the same collection. For example:
  • When adding a record about a chapter in a book. If the book is already in my collection, why not somehow provide a link, so I do not have to re-type (or mistype!) the publication information.
  • When commenting in the abstract or in the notes. If I wish to draw attention to how the item is corrected by (or corrects) something else in my collection, I would like some means to provide that cross-reference, on the fly.
  • When adding a journal article. If I have a journal already in my collection, complete with ISSN, abbreviation, and other metadata wouldn't it be nice, whenever I add a journal article, to simply link to the journal. If the link stays dynamic, then changes in the URL (or other metadata) of the journal could be tacitly changed across all linked records.
Now, the "related" tab shows that this kind of cross-referencing is possible. But the "related" tab is of unclear utility. You certainly cannot use it to indicate the meaningful relations I've suggested above. In its current incarnation the "related" tab seems merely to duplicate the function of groups and collections.

My gratitude to everyone who has made this tool what it is already!

This is an old discussion that has not been active in a long time. Instead of commenting here, you should start a new discussion. If you think the content of this discussion is still relevant, you can link to it from your new discussion.