On Mar 24, 2008, at 1:44 PM, Adam M. Goldstein wrote: > > On Mar 24, 2008, at 1:29 PM, Daniele Pontillo wrote: >> Hmm, >> and what about all the scientific publishers? >> In my case, there are thousands of medical journals that could >> benefit >> from this issue. >> Dan >> > > I think this is what Christiaan means by "suppliers of PDFs," that is, > the publishers on on-line articles and the like. > > If publishers in medicine aren't doing this, it's going to be a long, > long time before anyone else does. Many of the important innovations > in on-line databases of articles and other publications come from the > medical world, because that's where the money is; they have better > funding than other sciences, and certainly, than humanities.
After I babbled about this for ages, without actually taking action [1], I got a few calls from publishers interested in doing it, including Nature. The stumbling blocks at the time were: a) Code to insert the XMP elements into the PDF (although I think they could have licensed Adobe's stuff easily enough) b) A universal format for citation metadata to actually insert into the file. AFAIK this still doesn't exist, they all have their limitations. The feeling was that BibTeX was too limited field-wise, Endnote was proprietary and hard for others to use. MODS was considered to be coming close, but I haven't tracked things since then. I think that publishers would be happy to insert machine-readable metadata into their PDFs, if it was relatively easy to do and it was reliable for a range of tools to extract. --J [1]: http://freelancepropaganda.com/themp/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Bibdesk-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-users
