Issue 18169 - Second Bib entry with same identifier is ignored
Summary: Second Bib entry with same identifier is ignored
Status: CONFIRMED
Alias: None
Product: bibliographic
Classification: Code
Component: code (show other issues)
Version: OOo 1.1 RC2
Hardware: PC Linux, all
: P4 Trivial
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: AOO issues mailing list
QA Contact: issues@bibliographic
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2003-08-12 20:52 UTC by helmerj
Modified: 2013-02-07 22:34 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: ENHANCEMENT
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description helmerj 2003-08-12 20:52:49 UTC
I have an extensive database of medline entries (located in a csv text file 
that is registered as a data source), of which some entries end up having the 
same identifier (e.g. Blobel1975). If I have two entries that have the same 
identifier, no matter which one of the two I choose, the first one get 
inserted into the document. even if I switch the two entries in the insterting 
dialogue (or chose to edit the entrie in the same diaologue) I always get the 
first of the two entries and the second one is ignored. 
 
Juergen 
 
OO1.1 rc2 on Mandrake Linux 9.1 using KDE
Comment 1 dnwilson 2003-08-12 23:36:50 UTC
I have just tested this with the stadard bibliographic database and 
and inserted a record with a duplicate shortname, and as you say the 
shortname list shows both entries but only the first record is 
inserted even when the second shirtname on the list is selected. 
 
My guess is that the solution is to enforce shortname is unique rule 
in the database. It is against the rules / practice of bibliographic 
citation for the identifier to be the same. Most bibliographic 
styles have a method for separating otherwise unique ids eg 
[wilson:2000a] wilson:2000b]. 
 
You would have the same problem in LATEX - the bibliographic 
reference only holds the identifier, and the bibliographic table 
generator picks up the id and finds the record and format the table 
entry. If duplicate ids where in the list of reference the same 
thing would happen ? the first match would be picked. 
 
What we need to do ?  
 
1.explain the need for unique short names in the documentation 
2.change the database to ensure unique shortname ids. 
 
What you might do to get around this problem, - ensure that your ids 
are unique  
Ideas on how to do this -  
 
1.load them into a spreadsheet, sort on shortname order, 
add a column with a formula that shows a red box where there are 
duplicate shortnames. Fix manually. 
 
2.Also there are tidy programs that fix up many bibliographic 
consistency problems in large citation lists in bibTeX files ? they 
may do unique ids. (you will have to convert to bibtext and back) 
 
I think bibliographic programs such as sixpack (linux - but will run 
on windows if you install the right libraries) can import cvs, fix 
ids (I think it checks unique and makes new ones if the field is 
empty) export cvs. You may have to fix up record order of 
OpenOffice. 
Comment 2 helmerj 2003-08-13 02:42:31 UTC
Hi! 
 
The way you describe it it all makes sense. Nevertheless, I guess 
for the next version it would be nice, if I could do all that in OO. 
I'am aware thet the bib module will undergo a complete redesign for 
OO 2.0 but the bib module as it is right know is merly an interface 
to a database and not mich more. It would be nice if OO would 
realize something being wrong and offer the possibility to fix it. 
 
Well wait and see for OO 2.o I guess :-) 
 
Juergen 
Comment 3 stx123 2004-04-26 11:27:51 UTC
reassign to owner of selected subcomponent
Comment 4 stx123 2004-04-26 11:30:14 UTC
Now that the configuration is corrected:
reassign to owner of selected subcomponent
Comment 5 eric.savary 2004-04-26 15:45:29 UTC
ES->BH: This is an enhancement for which we have to decide how to force the
input of unique identifiers.
Comment 6 dnwilson 2004-05-07 00:04:13 UTC
My suggestion is to simply create a unique index for the shortname field in 
the database. 
 
Also if you do this change to the database could you also increase the field 
sizes as in issue 16268  ?  I still can not see that there is any good reason 
not to do this - It cripples the bibliography not to be able to store real 
book titles, notes, abstracts urls etc  - longer than 75 characters. 
 
 
Comment 7 bettina.haberer 2010-05-21 14:55:05 UTC
To grep the issues easier via "requirements" I put the issues currently lying on
my owner to the owner "requirements".