MacRepertory vs ReferenceWorks

 

"From your website I see that referenceworks also repertorises, so I'm slightly confused about whether, if I had both macrepertory and referenceworks, I would repertorise in both, or just one or the other?.   Grateful your guidance and/or a link that explains this." (an question from an email)

 

  Your question about repertorising in MacRepertory or ReferenceWorks is a very good one and the answer has to do with personal style and preference.

One could say that the Repertory is very structured and is more a left brain type tool and that ReferenceWorks favours the right. That's probably a bit of a stretched analogy but I think there is some truth in the matter as some people use ReferenceWorks much more than MacRepertory and vise verse.
 
Repertories in MacRepertory are accessed and utilised in a way that is a direct corollary of the printed book and how you would use one.  This is because the data is arranged in exactly the same way as you would find it in the book.  It's just easier to find the rubric and then you may select it for inclusion into a Rubric Clipboard.  Repeat this a few times and then with one button you  can create a  repertory graph.  It should be born in mind that repertory writers as a rule apply a discipline to the task, which is that the remedy must be proved and that the symptom is evident from the proving/s.
 
ReferenceWorks on the other hand requires some creativity and thought applied to the creation of searches, which are upon execution of a search are turned into rubrics.
These rubrics are created from the References that are found from either the entire Materia Medica or a subset of the same, which you have specified as a result of a limitation to the search, which you have applied.
It's also important to realise that the repertories in ReferenceWorks are found as repertory extractions.
 
Both methods are valid and both have limitations.
 
MacRepertory is limited to the rubrics in the repertories, which you have available.  Some repertories are very comprehensive and some are deliberately limited in scope.  Each repertory  was designed according to the authors philosophy.  
 
By contrast ReferenceWorks is limited to the entire materia medica that you have in your library or a subset of that, which you deliberately specified in your search.  Here it must be stressed that your library may included cases or information from journals etc, which has not been corroborated by provings.
 
Lets take an example.
 
Consider this rubric extracted from the Complete Reptertory 2009 as found in MacRepertory.  It has 31 remedies in it.

Mind; FEAR; Dogs, of (31) : aeth., androc., astac., BAC., BELL., Bufo, calc., carc., Caust., CHIN., choc., cupr-acet., hydrog., Hyos., lycpr., lyss., mand., med., Nat-m., nat-p., nit-ac., plat., polyst., Puls., sil., sol-t., Stram., syc-co., TUB., tub-k., verat.

 
If we do a search for "Fear Dogs", ( we don't need the "of "  as ReferenceWorks ignores such words) , here is the result.
 
Fear dogs (21): androc., aur., bar-c., bar-p., bell., calc., carc., caust., chin., diosp-k., hyos., iod., lyss., med., Plat-m., polyst., sil., Stram., stry., tub., xan.
 
You can see that it's similar but unusually has a smaller number of remedies.  Usually it's greater.
If we modify the search a bit so that it's scope is broader by hitting the space bar between the two words to insert <SEN>, we find more.
 
Fear in the same sentence as dogs (106): acon., aeth., agar., agra., anac., androc., anh., arg., arg-n., arge-p., arn., ars., art-v., astac., aur., bac., bar-c., bar-p., bell., berb., bubo-v., bufo, calc., calc-br., calc-m., calc-sil., carb-v., carc., carn-g., cath-a., caust., cham., chin., choc., cimic., croto-t., cupr-acet., cupr-f., cycl., dat-a., diosp-k., dor., dpt, dysp-n., gall-ac., geoc-c., germ., graph., helo., hydr-ac., hydrog., hyos., iod., kali-c., kali-n., lac-c., lac-f., lac-h., lap-c-b., lec., Lepro., Lyss., mag-m., mand., mang-m., mangi., med., merc., myos-a., nat-caust., nat-m., nat-p., nicc., nit-ac., op., ozone, pass-d., paull., phos., plat., plat-m., plb., polyst., pras-c., puls., sabin., scut., sep., sil., sol-t., sol-t-ae., staph., stram., stry., sulph., syc-co., ther., tril., tub., tub-a., tub-k., tub-m., turq., uro-h., verat., xan.
 
This search, I would say is too broad so I'll change it by removed the <SEN> and inserting a number, in this case 4.
 
Fear within four words of dogs (82): acon., aeth., agar., agra., anac., androc., arg., arn., art-v., astac., aur., bac., bar-c., bar-p., bell., bubo-v., bufo, calc., calc-m., calc-sil., carb-v., carc., carn-g., caust., chin., choc., cupr-acet., cupr-f., cycl., dat-a., diosp-k., dor., dpt, dysp-n., gall-ac., germ., graph., hydr-ac., hydrog., hyos., iod., kali-c., kali-n., lac-c., lac-f., lac-h., lec., Lepro., lyss., mag-m., mand., mang-m., med., merc., myos-a., nat-m., nat-p., nicc., nit-ac., op., plat., plat-m., plb., polyst., pras-c., puls., sabin., scut., sil., sol-t., sol-t-ae., stram., stry., syc-co., ther., tril., tub., tub-a., tub-k., tub-m., verat., xan.
 
Here is an image of the references, which were found.  If you look down at the bottom you will see "Fear animals dogs".  This was missed in the first search "Fear Dogs'.
 
 
With out going into a lot of detail here which would be hard to follow, without having the programs, what you are likely to discover from searches may be much broader than that which you will  find in the repertory.
 
You may if you wish export a given rubric or rubrics from ReferenceWorks to MacRepertory allowing you to use these dynamically created rubrics in concert with the static rubrics found in MacRepertory or you can stick to one or the other program to perform analysis.
 
This simulation of a repertory via the creation of dynamically created rubrics sourced from the entire materia medica, is what makes ReferenceWorks a revolutionary program.
 
These comments touch just the surface of the subject under consideration.