Firstly, let me say this is very very cool news. I went to go and have a browse though, and it's all tied up in a massive (around 3gb) archive file rather than being easily browsable. I know that WikiData is the obvious place to put it, but perhaps it would be useful as a reference work on Wikisource in its own right, decompressed and machine formatted into an easier to search format?
Cheers, Craig On 25 Apr 2012, at 19:29, emijrp wrote: > 2012/4/25 Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki at gmail.com> > >> Thanks for sharing, I had read about it on the NYT but nothing was said on >> license. >> So now the USA have more open bibliographic data than Germany/Europe? :) >> lobid.org is a very nice initiative, but other catalog systems have very >> complex interactions between hundreds or thousands of entities and it's >> very hard to change the licenses. >> The main problem is usually deduplication and quality of the records, any >> information on this for Harvard's data? >> >> Mateus Nobre, 25/04/2012 19:44: >> >>> Add ALL at Wikisource! >>> >> >> Wikisource? This is only metadata. >> > > Perhaps it is OK for Wikidata. A mass dump of all of the information onto Wikisource wouldn't be good - but being able to extract complete bibliographies of specific authors on demand would actually be quite useful for properly building author pages on Wikisource, rather than the current ad-hoc and incomplete lists that currently exist. (With the consequence that bibliographies on Wikipedia could be 'outsourced' to Wikisource, bringing that project much-needed readers and editors). Thanks, Mike _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l