Two-way Compatibility with BibDesk about jabref

[koppor]

We added follow-up issues for groups:

• #11318
• #11319
• #11320

---

• For groups reading and writing, we use this issue
• For dates, I will take care and move JabRef in the direction to read/write BibDesk date fields in future versions while respecting "old" timestamp format (and not just modify them)

[Siedlerchr]

Thanks for the feedback!

1. JabRef has two fields for this as well:
   
   This looks then like this

@Article{,
  author           = {test},
  creationdate     = {2024-04-21T18:25:51},
  modificationdate = {2024-04-21T18:25:52},
}

2. I would suggest first creating an export "Bib desk bib format" for this as the step to verify and test the group creation
   If this works as expected, one can integrate this with an additional save option here "Save groups as bib desk groups"

[koppor]

We had the discussion at koppor#130. I voted for dated-added at koppor#130 (comment). At the code at

jabref/src/main/java/org/jabref/logic/cleanup/TimeStampToCreationDate.java

Lines 22 to 23 in 2b5fddd

	* If the old updateTimestamp setting is enabled, the timestamp field for each entry are migrated to the date-modified field.
	* Otherwise it is migrated to the date-added field.

, "date-modified" is still mentioned.

I think, we opted for creationdate and modificationdate, because

Note that dates in biblatex always ends on date, like eventdate, urldate or origdate. The reason for this convention is that biblatex automatically parses these dates and provides virtual fields containing the information like eventmonth or eventyear. See \DeclareLabeldate command.

Source: koppor#130 (comment)

We did not create any ADR for our decision. We should do it. :)

What is more important? BibDesk compatibility or biblatex compatibility? Currently, I think, more BibDesk compatibility, because the date field handling for creation and modification is less often used.

This issue also refs #10370, but we cannot do much currently.

[koppor]

Flagged "DevCall" to refine the issue.

[foice]

Thanks for chiming in. Yes, an export format can be a good way to test it. In the long run one wants to have that field to be created automatically so that BibDesk timestamps format is automatically satisfied.

[koppor]

Some (somewhat internal) notes of us: https://pad.riseup.net/p/JX_CKKb99QmxeNBxpHob