I like the evolution of ideas here. I think being able to choose a "preferred library" for use in a document is a better approach than "enabling/disabling" libraries.
Also agree with Bruce that "requiring group libraries to do collaboration" is not optimal, and glad a solution is being worked on. Not having to set up groups necessarily, and being able to work with people who use compatible reference managers, is something to look forward to. That is not to say group libraries will become useless; I think they will remain a great way of pooling resources.
Thinking out loud about group vs. personal libraries, I'm wondering whether the Dropbox way of sharing folders would not perhaps be a better UI metaphor. Shared folders in Dropbox become available to others but they are not severed from the local Dropbox in the way group libraries are severed from the local library in Zotero currently (with its attendant duplicate item headaches). Perhaps Groups should be more integrated in the library and behave like "shared collections".
@mronkko Is there way for someone from the general public (non-developer) to implement this patch or do we have to wait till it gets rolled into an official release?
I can mess with code if the instructions are relatively clear, but I've poked around the developer sections long enough know the learning curve would be too steep--and the risks too high--for my dissertation.
Bugger. The problem with references from multiple libraries showing up in the Word plugin is still here, and it's really annoying. I'm switching back to classic view until a way to select libraries becomes available.
There should be some way to enforce a single library per document. Everyone who has ever collaborated with zotero understands the need for this feature. It's really not that complicated to imagine, understand, conceptualize, or, probably, even to implement.
Whether the idea contradicts a metaphor, ideology, philosophy, or religious creed is irrelevant. The inconvenience and, often, the embarrassment of a document with an orphaned citation is MUCH MUCH worse than compromising on some idealized functionality concocted at a board meeting.
james - please dial back your rhetoric a bit, especially since you don't seem to have taken the time to actually read the thread.
The issue of orphaned citations you describe will become irrelevant with the Zotero 3.0 release, since, as Dan points out above:
"Documents can now be shared with users of Zotero and other compatible software without using Zotero groups"
In other words, orphaned citations will cease to exist.
Also, contrary to what you seem to think, it is very important to think through the exact ways in which software is used, can be used, should be used etc. Concepts and metaphors matter greatly for the user experience.
If you want this feature included in the Zotero, read a bit more about it. Then make a civilized argument for including it and maybe you can convince the Zotero developers. Just ranting about it will get you nowhere.
Orphaned citations are only half the problem. The other half is the potential for multiple identical citations that happen to have been added differently between different libraries (i.e. pubmed and directly at the journal site, etc.).
Granted, enforcing a single library does not solve the issue of multiple identical citations arising from said single library, but it would greatly reduce the problem because it is easy to identify multiple identical citations within a single library.
Also, relying on embedded metadata essentially makes every paper its own citation library and compounds the problem of ensuring uniqueness. (Uniqueness is REQUIRED when the bibliography is formatted.)
Finally, I rant to ensure recognition of a +1 vote for this feature. Many people need features but do not request them with enough fervor to get the attention of developers. I will never fall into that trap, I assure you. Double finally, I did read the thread. How do you think I made my rant so poignant?
jamesstroud: Would the solution on the dev-list solve your problems better than the approach that Simon is presenting? If so, you can also try to cast your vote there. I am not sure if the developers follow all forum posts, but they definitely follow the developers mailing list.
Thanks, Dan, for the lesson in civility. The last post to this forum was 2 months ago. I had no idea the idea was still alive or that anyone was following this thread.
Anyway, since I am not welcome on the dev list, apparently, I'll put my vote in for mronkko's patch here. Especially since the patch is already written and would solve both the (obsolete) problem of orphaned citations and multiple identical citations.
The functionality would not be confusing to users, especially the type of users who need a tool like zotero.
I'd just like to add my support for including some way of restricting the libraries associated with a document, whether it is through disabling libraries or designating a preferred library. This is a significant issue for me, as I work on a lot of different projects and very often bring co-authors into their first use of Zotero, and so they tend not to immediately grasp the subtleties of multiple libraries. We also share a very similar workflow to that described by mronkko (clean up cite data late in the process, share PDFs in group libraries).
Upgrade Storage
Also agree with Bruce that "requiring group libraries to do collaboration" is not optimal, and glad a solution is being worked on. Not having to set up groups necessarily, and being able to work with people who use compatible reference managers, is something to look forward to. That is not to say group libraries will become useless; I think they will remain a great way of pooling resources.
Thinking out loud about group vs. personal libraries, I'm wondering whether the Dropbox way of sharing folders would not perhaps be a better UI metaphor. Shared folders in Dropbox become available to others but they are not severed from the local Dropbox in the way group libraries are severed from the local library in Zotero currently (with its attendant duplicate item headaches). Perhaps Groups should be more integrated in the library and behave like "shared collections".
I can mess with code if the instructions are relatively clear, but I've poked around the developer sections long enough know the learning curve would be too steep--and the risks too high--for my dissertation.
I guess I can just purge my groups for now.
On OS X and Linux, the patch would be implemented by first checking out the Zotero code with the following command
svn co -r 10302 https://www.zotero.org/svn/extension/trunk/ zotero
then the patch is applied with the following two commands
wget http://groups.google.com/group/zotero-dev/attach/96334ed4e7bd67ce/svndiff.txt
patch svndiff.txt
You can read more about running Zotero from SVN here http://www.zotero.org/support/dev/svn_and_trac_access
Whether the idea contradicts a metaphor, ideology, philosophy, or religious creed is irrelevant. The inconvenience and, often, the embarrassment of a document with an orphaned citation is MUCH MUCH worse than compromising on some idealized functionality concocted at a board meeting.
Just do it.
The issue of orphaned citations you describe will become irrelevant with the Zotero 3.0 release, since, as Dan points out above:
"Documents can now be shared with users of Zotero and other compatible software without using Zotero groups"
In other words, orphaned citations will cease to exist.
Also, contrary to what you seem to think, it is very important to think through the exact ways in which software is used, can be used, should be used etc. Concepts and metaphors matter greatly for the user experience.
You can follow the discussion here
http://groups.google.com/group/zotero-dev/browse_thread/thread/34fb60cf0fdffeb5#
If you want this feature included in the Zotero, read a bit more about it. Then make a civilized argument for including it and maybe you can convince the Zotero developers. Just ranting about it will get you nowhere.
Granted, enforcing a single library does not solve the issue of multiple identical citations arising from said single library, but it would greatly reduce the problem because it is easy to identify multiple identical citations within a single library.
Also, relying on embedded metadata essentially makes every paper its own citation library and compounds the problem of ensuring uniqueness. (Uniqueness is REQUIRED when the bibliography is formatted.)
Finally, I rant to ensure recognition of a +1 vote for this feature. Many people need features but do not request them with enough fervor to get the attention of developers. I will never fall into that trap, I assure you. Double finally, I did read the thread. How do you think I made my rant so poignant?
http://www.zotero.org/support/forum_guidelines#be_civil
Anyway, since I am not welcome on the dev list, apparently, I'll put my vote in for mronkko's patch here. Especially since the patch is already written and would solve both the (obsolete) problem of orphaned citations and multiple identical citations.
The functionality would not be confusing to users, especially the type of users who need a tool like zotero.
Thanks!
Tom