I concur with korm’s point that TagNotate’s use of the Author field of PDF document properties is fragile, as it can be overwritten in editing by other applications to the surprise of the user. It would also interfere with the use of that field for its intended purpose, for many users. For that matter, there exist examples of PDFs in which TagNotate’s approach is blocked.
I’m not very interested in an annotation method that is limited to only a few of the filetypes in my databases. I prefer approaches that can work with any document, regardless of its filetype.
When DEVONthink adopted the OpenMeta tagging system, we and other developers were somewhat concerned about the fragility of that system. OpenMeta tags use a section of code in files that had been reserved by Apple, and not explicitly made available for modification by third-part developers. The advantages of OpenMeta tags is that they work for a wide range of filetypes, OpenMeta tags created in DEVONthink can be recognized by some other applications and tags created using other applications in that way can be recognized by DEVONthink. The danger was that with any update or upgrade of OS X, Apple could take over the area of code that holds the tags for another purpose. So far, taking that risk has provided benefit to users, and my guess is that Apple won’t kill the tags, at least without providing migration of tags to an alternative approach. The tagging system didn’t conflict with other uses of files, unlike TagNotate’s approach, and isn’t limited to a subset of documents by filetype characteristics.
Impressive scholarly research was done long before computer tools were available. QDA approaches were used in analysis of Shakespeare’s writings (including some alleged not to have been written by him), in Newton’s alchemical writing, in analysis of the Bible, the Talmud & c. In Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary he defined Lexicographer as “a harmless drudge”. Not as impressive but certainly emphasizing drudgery, I worked on a multivolume bibliography using thousands of handwritten notes from library research, followed by a series of syllabi for graduate courses about science, technology and public policy that were funded by the National Science Foundation. Having been impressed at the age of 13 or 14 by Vannevar Bush’s concept of the Memex and watching since then the development of computer technology, you have no idea how much I was wishing for computer assistance while doing all that drudge work!
Computer tools are now widely available and used in research. They can allow for more time spent in thinking and less in sheer mechanical drudgery. Unfortunately, the old Yiddish saying that ninety-something percent of everything is drek still holds concerning the product of research. Nothing substitutes for genius.
I often wish I had genius.
Adapt and use tools, including computer software, to get work done. I love DEVONthink because it provides a set of tools that I can often kludge to do a job that it wasn’t specifically designed to do. Often, with a bit of drudgery, I use a network of linked notes in such kludges.