Re: [dev-biblio] Re: Re: embedded references/functional requirements wiki page
On Apr 5, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Matt Price wrote: should it be a little more extensive here? so for instnace: I am extremely disorganized, and in the absence of a satisfactory bibliogrpahic solution have dealt with various bibs in the last few years. On one paper I use one bib, for another project I may have a wholly different one. So shouldthe uri be: person:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:SOME_HASH_HERE:smith99 I'm not really sure exactly what it should be, but yeah, it'd take some thought. I should also add that using uris for association is likely what will be the outcome of the metadata work at the ODF TC. It provides a standard and general mechanism to link content and metadata. How's that? do you guys have some docs on this emerging standard? It's not emerging; it's already widely used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Resource_Identifier See how examples like RDF and XLink use uris for linking. One example of the former relevant to this discussion: http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/06/02/dijalog.html Bruce - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] Re: Re: embedded references/functional requirements wiki page
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 12:18:27PM -0400, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: On Apr 5, 2006, at 12:12 PM, Matt Price wrote: sorry, I didn't mean URI's, I meant the metadata work atthe ODF TC. OIC. There's nothing yet, but so long as we agree on allowing standard embedded metadata, I believe there's consensus support for defining one or more linking attributes that would associate content (like citations) with that metadata. That was uncontroversial when we last talked about it at least. in this context doess standard embedded metatdata mean metadata that follows already existing standards or a new OASIS standard for document metadata? m Bruce To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- .''`. Matt Price : :' : Debian User `. `'`hemi-geek `- -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] Re: Re: embedded references/functional requirements wiki page
On Wed, 5-Apr-2006 10:27 -0400, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: If I ping a server and give a list of isbns and dois and an optional username, problem solved; no? Yes and no, It depends on the quality of the bibliographic data. [...] OK, fair enough. But we need to design the system to enable what I'm arguing for as ideal I think. Yep, and this is a good thing, otherwise there wouldn't be any progress! ;-) It's important to stay as backwards compatible as possible, though. The fallback can well be that for some users with poor data sources, their citation uris are rather dumb uris like: person:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:smith99 Something like this would be good and I'd consider it equally important. But we need to start getting with the network here, so that it'll even be possible for a user to be reading a book they want to cite, add a citation by typing in the isbn in the citation id field, and OOoBib will grab that relevant record from the Library of Congress server. Likewise for DOIs. Yes, that's a very nice feature. However, when I'm writing a paper, 95% of the cited references do already exist in my bibliographic database and I want to use these (and not a copy from somewhere else) since I know that I've verified my own entries for correctness (multiple times). The same cannot be said for any remotely fetched data and I'd need to check each entry for correctness. This is just an example. My point is here that it really depends on the user's specific needs. On Wed, 5-Apr-2006 10:34 -0400, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: As I said, I know there are real world difficulties with this approach, but consider all the (much greater) problems of the alternative: every user has their own unique reference scheme. Two collaborate on a document, one citing an article using xyz and the other the exact same article using 123. Imagine THAT headache! That's a very good point. Still, I think that this, again, is completely dependent on the user's individual needs. If you're writing your thesis, collaboration may be less important. But it may be absolutely crucial when writing a scientific paper together with your co-authors. In summary, I think that both keying methods (database-independent and database-dependent) have major advantages and disadvantages. Thus, the solution should be to simply allow for both methods. Ideally, multiple identifiers would be stored and sent to the bibliographic database which could then decide what to do. One logic could be: If the database-dependent information (username, cite key, local record ID) can be resolved, prefer this method to fetch the user's personal entry, otherwise try to fetch the data from trusted sources (such as LoC) using the database-independent identifiers. Matthias - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] Re: Re: embedded references/functional requirements wiki page
On Apr 5, 2006, at 2:24 PM, Matthias Steffens wrote: However, when I'm writing a paper, 95% of the cited references do already exist in my bibliographic database and I want to use these (and not a copy from somewhere else) since I know that I've verified my own entries for correctness (multiple times). The same cannot be said for any remotely fetched data and I'd need to check each entry for correctness. This is just an example. OK, but I take it you're using RefBase; a single database? What do you do for Matt, who has different databases, where the same reference has different local db numbers and cite keys? FWIW, the way Endnote handles this is that citations include author and year, so if it can't find the proper record by id, it uses those to present users choices. My point is here that it really depends on the user's specific needs. True. Thus, the solution should be to simply allow for both methods. OK. Ideally, multiple identifiers would be stored and sent to the bibliographic database which could then decide what to do. Yes, ideally. But I'm not sure how practical that is (to get implemented). One logic could be: If the database-dependent information (username, cite key, local record ID) can be resolved, prefer this method to fetch the user's personal entry, otherwise try to fetch the data from trusted sources (such as LoC) using the database-independent identifiers. I think I'd separate this out further: 1) how to identify (local vs. universal id) 2) how to locate (generic vs. user-based) As I said before, one could use an isbn-based uri to grab a record from a local db. My sense is that we could have rules and configuration options to set these options. Am not exactly sure what they'd be, but it probably wouldn't be too hard to figure out. Maybe: For identifying citations, use: universal identifiers (enhances portability) user-specific labels Bruce - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] Re: Re: embedded references/functional requirements wiki page
On Wed, 5-Apr-2006 15:29 -0400, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: Ideally, multiple identifiers would be stored and sent to the bibliographic database which could then decide what to do. Yes, ideally. But I'm not sure how practical that is (to get implemented). The database would need to perform additional queries if the first choice doesn't result in a single record being found. I think that this is feasible though. I'm talking more at the document format level. The citation proposal only allows one key/id. Does that mean that you can only specify one single identifier? Be it ISBN, DOI, local record ID or user-specific cite key? You can't specify multiple identifiers? This would mean that all our discussion is meaningless, doesn't it? Allowing more complicated coding in an already complicated spec would no doubt be controversial for the TC, and for implementors. Moreover, it would treat citations as a special class of object, which would also probably be controversial. I understand that. But the TC folks should also understand that the entire bibliographic database will be completely useless, if people can't link to their own records. This will be a major frustration. Being modern and ideal is nice, but if it only suits 5% of the crowd, something is wrong. Sounds reasonable, but maybe it should read: For identifying citations, prefer: Prefer would indicate that both identifiers will be used but with different priorities. Yes, absolutely. And come to think of it, there should be another config option for preferred sources, with optional user parameter(s). Yes, personal info such as usernames may be different across the various databases. As far as I can see, the ONLY reason to have a natural language key is because one doesn't have a universal identifier. Your concern is mostly about *where* you get your records from, not how you identify them (you want *your* records because you trust them). Basically, yes. It's not only the source (*where*) but I want specifically my own records (*your*). So even within the same source, I don't want the buggy incomplete records of my colleague but my own ones. So for me, I'd want a rule that says to use universal ids wherever possible, and to fallback to a label I provide where necessary. I'd say it the other way 'round: prefer my own records wherever possible but fallback to universal ids where necessary, e.g. if nothing found or when collaborating with others. I'd also perhaps default to my database and user account, with options to ping other servers if data is missing. Yes, exactly! Wouldn't that solve the problems with the best balance of concerns? Yes. Matthias - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] Re: Re: embedded references/functional requirements wiki page
On Thursday 06 April 2006 4:24 am, Matthias Steffens wrote: On Wed, 5-Apr-2006 10:27 -0400, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: Yes, that's a very nice feature. However, when I'm writing a paper, 95% of the cited references do already exist in my bibliographic database and I want to use these (and not a copy from somewhere else) since I know that I've verified my own entries for correctness (multiple times). The same cannot be said for any remotely fetched data and I'd need to check each entry for correctness. (If you wonder why I make late entries into some of the discussions - it's because I am not up a 2:30 am) Yes I agree, we can not assume that library catalogues are correct - even the sainted US LOC. I was told recently the a common library cataloguing practice, and one used my university, is that when a new book comes in to be catalogue, the cataloguer, does a world-wide library search and copies the first cataloguing entry found. Now if they all do this all the libraries have copies of the very first cataloguing entry produced for that book by X from library Y, and X may not be all the skilled at writing them because he or she mostly spends their time copying other libraries' efforts. This also partly explains why book on the same topics are not always together on the shelves. Also the libraries I have used often have problems collecting the books of one author under the same author listing. So you have books by Smith Fred, S Smith Fred, S (1934- ) Smith Fred, S (1934-1987) (Which will look poor in your Dissertation, and be even worse if you assumed they were different people) So the point is that collecting internet cataloguing data will not be a magic corrector of data. Useful, but it will still need checking by the user. David -- --- David N. Wilson Co-Project Lead for the Bibliographic OpenOffice Project http://bibliographic.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev-biblio] Re: Re: embedded references/functional requirements wiki page
On Apr 5, 2006, at 6:06 PM, Matthias Steffens wrote: I'd also perhaps default to my database and user account, with options to ping other servers if data is missing. Yes, exactly! Wouldn't that solve the problems with the best balance of concerns? Yes. So do the two yes responses suggest I don't need to respond to the previous objections? Bruce - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
