LibreOffice 7.5.1.2
Win11-64
WG75-Writers Guide
GS74-Getting Started
This is not a criticism. You have a great product and I enjoy using it. It is an analysis of faults, a critique, meant to (at least) state what is confusing to me. I am just beginning to use the LibreOffice bibliography and have thought to read the documentation before I use the facility. These are some of the things that I have found.
The WG75-Writers Guide Bibliography section needs a review. I think that it contains legacy items no longer used, it contains page numbers which are inaccurate, cyclic references to GS74-Getting Started, contradictory descriptions (of the identifier field), figures which donāt match the text and other things.
As in all reviews, take this one with a grain of salt and aspiration level laughter.
Some issues:
[1] This is the primary source for the Writer application. The āGetting Started Guideā is not the primary source for any application, it is only an aid. Either rename āGetting Startedā or ensure that all primary source documents are standalone and need not reference Getting Started. If you elect to continue using the Getting Started Guide as is, then references to this Guide should be direct references to a section in the Guide rather than to the Guide itself. The normal inference on a reference to the Guide is to look for the current topic, in this case Bibliographies. There is not much content from pg. 87, Creating Bibliographies and Indexes, in the Getting Started Guide to the end. If more than an overview is required then address the needed section(s) directly.
[2] Reference to the bibliography section of the Getting Started Guide are cyclic and non-informative. the Writer Guide references the Getting Started Guide which references the Writer Guide for bibliographic information.
[3] A brief referential section seems needed to identify and name, for this document, various items to be covered. Amongst the terms that should be clearly defined are:
a. references: particularly if this means Insert->Field->More Fields items.
b. citation.
c. citation record.
d. citation format.
e. citation style.
5. bibliographic database containing citation record.
g. global bibliographic database.
h. local bibliographic database.
i. embedded bibliographic database.
[5] Some information which needs addressing concerning citations, citation records, and the bibliographic database:
a. What happens when the original file is renamed, moved to the same filesystems, moved between computers.
a. What happens when the file is output in another format (docx, pdf, epub, text, ā¦)
a. What are the issues with embedded, local, global bibliographic databases and renaming, moving.
[6] The Identifier/Short Name field has conflicting definitions.
a. pg. 355 Citations, eg, APA, MLA. Chicago, etc, use the Identifier field.
b. pg. 356 Replace sample entries with the proper citation style format.
c. pg. 357 Enter an entry name in the Short Name box. Should be unique.
d. pg. 357 Enter [Author, date].
e. pg. 360 Select a (ed. unique) reference from the Short Name drop-down
f. pg. 360 Type a unique name.
g. pg. 361 Use the text recorded in the Short Name field.
The conflicts are in the uniqueness requirement and a., b., d. in that uniqueness is not guaranteed, and in the usage in a., b. and for example, c. and d..
[7] I suspect the pg. 355 Citation Style section is a legacy item and should be removed. If it is not then some or all of the following apply:
a. The conflict in use of the Short Name Field has been noted.
b. What each style looks like is nowhere supplied.
c. External references defining the styles are not supplied.
d. External references to get additional styles other than the 4 main styles is not supplied.
e. What ASCII text is to be used for these and other citation styles in the Short Name Field.
[8] The word āCitationā is used in multiple contexts. As a ācitationā style, a bibliographic entry in the database, a reference to a bibliographic entry in the document, and a bibliography entry in the document. This is confusing.
[9] Nowhere are the database fields, except the Identifier field, defined.
a. The Type field and its relationship to pg. 362 Figure 369 is undefined.
b. The relationship between fields and Type format is undefined. Which fields are needed for which output forms.
c. Conflicts in Identifier formats are unresolved, eg, an author creates multiple entries on the same day or in the same year, this makes the Identifier non-unique which is allowed. How is a reference to one of this non-unique names made.
d. How are multiple editors, authors entered.
e. What is the difference between and organization and an institution.
f. and so on.
[10] Which documents can have a bibliographic database, writer, calc, impress, ā¦, and how are the references represented. Other documents should be cited, and this information should be put into the Getting Started Guide.
[11] pg. 355 Tip.
a. āWriter has a single bibliography database for all documentsā, this is clearly inaccurate.
b. Provide a reference to the relevant template information. If in-document, then link to it. The Getting Started Guide provides for Creating index and bibliographies provides no useful information.
[12] Note:
a. Nowhere are the citation record fields related to a citation format/style.
b. Clarification between ācitation formatā and ācitation styleā seems warranted.
c. Change āsingle entryā to ācitation recordā. Note that multiple names are used for the same thing.
[13] Caution. The Short Name Field usage needs further definition.
[14] āChanging the data sourceā The concept āData Sourceā is undefined. The use of a Data Source depends on the definition of a local bibliographic database which is also undefined. The distinction between a data source which is a global bibliographic database is also undefined. The definition of āglobalā in the context of a Writer is also undefined. At this point, āChanging the data sourceā has no meaning.
a. What is unaddressed is that when the data source is changed, it is changed for this instance of the LibreOffice application. If several documents are open, each with a different local bibliographic database, then all but one will have a valid bibliographic database, the rest will have an invalid data source, i.e., the one that has been changed. If this statement is accurate then this is a flaw in LibreOffice. It does not allow several articles to be open, each with its own data source, to be changed in parallel. Instead, each time the subject of the changes are shifted, the data source needs to be changed.
b. It might be more appropriate to say āChanging the bibliographic databaseā.
c. What happens to the global example data source if a new version of LO is used. What happens to any changes made?
[15] āFiltering recordsā No rationale is given as to why this is needed or desired. What is the object of record filtration?
a. The legends in the form are undefined.
b. The fields are undefined.
c. The processing algorithm is undefined.
d. Missing is ctrl-shift-F4->{auto filter, apply filter, standard filter, reset filter}
e. Missing is Tool->Bibliographic database->{auto filter, standard filter}
[16] āAdding entries to the databaseā
a. 1) change ārecordsā to ācitation recordsā.
b. 2) Note that ctrl-shift-F4->Edit Data adds a citation record which can be edited if and only if its predecessor record has an entry.
c. 3) āEnter nameā, note previously identified duplicate meanings. Note also that some meanings preclude the entry from being unique. Note that there is no identified way to create citation references with duplicate citation record names.
[17] āMaintaining entries in the databaseā
a. āentriesā should be changed to ācitation recordsā
b. ctrl-shift-F4 allows citation record modification.
[18] āColumn detailsā
a. A ācolumnā has not been described. The distinction is important. There are more database types than Codd Relations, and in most a column has no meaning. It might be better to define a citation record independently before this point, and to relate the citation record fields to the UI legends and field contents, to the database presentation format in Tools->Bibliographic database or ctl-shift-F4. Then to state that the presentation format for citation records in the bibliographic database looks like a spreadsheet, and that each citation record field is a column in this presentation. The document did say that the bibliographic database looked like a spreadsheet but a little more wordage may be in order. Note that showing the UI and not stating the direct relationship to a citation record is deceptive, as well as the citation record ācolumnā names are not the same as in the UI, for example, 'University" is a āSchoolā.
b. Figure 361 and Figure 363 are both missing āLocal Copyā, and that āLocal Copyā is not in the citation record and as a result, there is an error each time Tools->Bibliography Database is used.
c. The UI in Figure 361 and 363 are different. Does that difference in content warrant a discussion?
[19] āField detailsā you are depending on your reader to understand what a āfieldā is.
a. ālevelā: You probably mean to say something line the sidebar on the left shows hierarchical trees, one for each registered citation database. Select the database being used and click on each level to get to the citation record entry, that is ->Tables->, then left click on . In our example this is Bibliography->Tables->biblio. Otherwise, "levelā has no meaning.
b. 3) or 5) Right-click the citation record entry (ed. or select the column/field) ā¦
c. 5) in my version of LO I get Figure 365 not Figure 366.
d. 5) Where is anything in Figure 366 defined?
e. 6) where is the āField Typeā anything?
[20] Figure 361 UI looks better than the flat field look in LibreOffice.
Iām sorry. I just ran out of time. The document needs some clarification and a critical review. Most particularly, some attention to defining things and using consistent names throughout the document.