🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Goldman-0311941705500001@calonice.btk.utu.fi>,
Goldman@hippo.btk.utu.fi (Adrian Goldman) wrote:

> Now we're on the subject of record numbers, can I again (I certainly can!)
> bitch about them?  IMHO it is an absurd way of maintaining a database --
> there really is no flexibility *at all*.  For instance, what I would like
> to do is to share one big happy Endnote database between multiple users
> such that everybody maintains their little portion of it but so that all
> the items are available (and useable in formatting an MS) from one big
> database.  There would be a flag associated with entries so you would
> know that a particular entry came from a particular person - for instance
> a data-enterer field - which would allow you to know where to go look for
> the original article.  (Yes I know you could use the notes field for that -
> but I still wouldn't have a multi-part, multi-user database.)

I don't understand why you cannot have a shared database now, provided that the
single database will hold all that you want and is physically accessible to all
users.  Why do you want and what do you mean by multi-part?

It is essential that references in a manuscript have some unique identifier so
that the reference can be identified during formatting, and that is the function
of the record number.  What else would you use as an identifier?  It would be
nice if the database was included in the identifier, so that more than one
database could be used in formatting one paper, but that is extending record
numbers, not getting rid of them.

The original problem was space left in a database.  As I understand this, it
results from references being deleted, and the numbers not being reused.
Provided one does not delete references often, this would not be a problem.  I
for one seem to be always adding, rarely if ever deleting.