Opened 8 years ago
Closed 5 years ago
#1338 closed defect (fixed)
Items from Proquest store abstract in notes field
| Reported by: | tjowens | Owned by: | mcburton |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | major | Milestone: | |
| Component: | translators | Version: | 1.0 |
| Keywords: | Cc: | simon |
Description
Proquest puts abstracts into the AB field which the RIS translator maps to a notes. We should either add an exception for Proquest or see if this is widespread and make a change to the RIS translator.
Jstor does the same thing and has a fix in it. So we can just reuse that fix, but I would hazard to guess that there are other folks that have made the logical step to map AB to abstract. In which case we should consider editing the RIS file.
The RIS spec says AB maps to note and that N2 maps to abstract, which just feels wrong. http://www.refman.com/support/risformat_tags_03.asp
Change History (3)
comment:1 Changed 8 years ago by dstillman
- Cc simon added
comment:2 Changed 8 years ago by dstillman
Er, I meant, I would say that we don't want to go against the spec.
comment:3 Changed 5 years ago by ajlyon
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from new to closed
The RIS translator was changed not that long ago to bow to tradition and map AB to abstractNote on import, so this can be closed.
In general, I would say that we want to go against the spec, even if it's an awful, illogical one, and we should probably just fix this for ProQuest.
On the other hand, there is a valid question of why anyone implementing RIS would choose to put note data in AB when N1 was available...