I’m quite new to DTPro (I owned a license but started using massively in the last weeks). I’m trying to build my research database and have a few questions:
- better one or two databases to store PDFs and notes"es? I see some pros (you have all your research in one db) and cons (noise ratio grows) for a unique database but I’d like to know what others approches are.
- (related to 1) How does AI builds “see also” (single database or multiple) and “keywords” list? I guess there’s a quantitative criteria but, especially for keywords, I don’t see it.
If you haven’t already, I’d suggest cruising through some of the forums since there have been many postings related to this topic. You might start with a search of Bill_DeVille as username. He’s posted a lot of good thinking on organizing databases as have several of the “gods” who hang out. As you’ve know doubt discovered, DTPro offers many different ways to do things…as many ways as there are posters to the forum. Good luck.
nestor, See Also looks at the text content of documents to find possible contextual similarities. IIRC, it doesn’t pay any attention to keywords entered in the Comment field, or to document Names.
See also: does other elements influence it? For example the structure of the groups, in which group the document is stored? Etc.?
Keywords: I didn’t mean keywords entered in Comment field but the ones that pop up if you click on the button on the right of document window close to the “See also/Classify” button.
DB Consistency: would it be more precise if I separate notes from fulltext?
By the way here’s the way I structured my (multilingual) Research DB in the Humanities:
(that’s a mere ‘librarian’ classification to find it references easily and alphabetically: should I sub-classify depending on contents?)
- Notes & Quotes
Here I have to hipothesis:
- sub-groups by discipline (philosophy/literary criticism/history etc) or
- conceptually: everything related to W. Whitman poetry, to modernity, to postcolonial studies, to war representation in UE media etc.
In one of your post you suggested to group documents notes conceptually is that that you meant? And…why? To have better “see also” results? I made a try with both structures and it seems that works better even though I loose the ‘discipline’/author criteria that’s good for browsing. I thought a workaround for this was to make in the root folder a table of contents with links to every group but it doesn’t seem to work: the link to the notes group is created but clicking on it doesn’t takes you to the group, am I missing something?