On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Finn Aarup Nielsen wrote:
>..
> Do anyone knows anything about the French discussions on the introduction of
> the 'Reference' namespace? Should we just implement the French system on the
> English Wikipedia and we are there?
This was discussed on en.wp in late 20
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 5:47 PM, David Goodman
wrote:
> Sure, but first, is this capable of being done at all? I have never
> seen a method of bibliographic control that can cope with the complete
> range of publications, even just print publications. Perhaps we need
> to proceed within narro
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Jakob wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Talking about identifiers for bibliographic records I just want to
> stress one crucial point:
>
> > This gives us the following key, guaranteed to be unique:
> > KangHsuKrajbich20091011b
>
> There is absolutely no such thing as a "guaranteed
"citation signals" will always work until a rock band takes that name
and gets a page in Wikipedia. Try "game theory".
Making "semantic" identifiers seems to be a hard problem. If you put
slashes in an identifier, you irritate the folks who want pure and
simple REST URLs. If you put underscores, M
Sure, but first, is this capable of being done at all? I have never
seen a method of bibliographic control that can cope with the complete
range of publications, even just print publications. Perhaps we need
to proceed within narrow domains.
Second, is this capable of being done by crowd-sourcin
Why would anyone cite this particular edition? It's not the first ed.,
which is, I think,
http://openlibrary.org/books/OL23411638M/inland_voyage.
it's not even the first american edition. It's not a standard
scholarly edition. It's not an earlier collected edition. It's not an
edition which is cu
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Jodi Schneider wrote:
>
> On 21 Jul 2010, at 19:47, Brian J Mingus wrote:
>
> Finn,
>
> I'm not a fan of including a portion of the the title for a couple of
> reasons. First, it's not required to make the key unique. Second, it makes
> the key longer than necessa
The model for this is WP:Book sources, though this relies upon the
user selecting the appropriate places to look, rather than guiding
him.
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Jodi Schneider wrote:
>
> On 21 Jul 2010, at 19:47, Brian J Mingus wrote:
>
> Finn,
> I'm not a fan of including a portion o
For items that have been assigned a doi, isn't the doi unique (in the
absence of errors--which i cannot recall having ever encountered)? Of
course the same item in its various manifestations may have multiple
dois, or may have versions that do not have dois as well as versions
that do have them, a
On 21 Jul 2010, at 19:47, Brian J Mingus wrote:
> Finn,
>
> I'm not a fan of including a portion of the the title for a couple of
> reasons. First, it's not required to make the key unique. Second, it makes
> the key longer than necessary. Third, the first word or words from a title
> are not
On 21 Jul 2010, at 21:43, Reid Priedhorsky wrote:
> A compromise could be that the ID is the first author's name plus an
> auto-incrememented ID per author. So for example, the first paper of
> mine the system learns is priedhorsky1, the second priedhorsky2, etc. So
> you get a system-generated
On 07/21/2010 03:36 PM, Jakob wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Talking about identifiers for bibliographic records I just want to
> stress one crucial point:
>
>> This gives us the following key, guaranteed to be unique:
>> KangHsuKrajbich20091011b
>
> There is absolutely no such thing as a "guaranteed unique
Hi,
Talking about identifiers for bibliographic records I just want to
stress one crucial point:
> This gives us the following key, guaranteed to be unique:
> KangHsuKrajbich20091011b
There is absolutely no such thing as a "guaranteed unique identifier"
that can be derived from existing meta
In reference to the discussion about citations, we're recently added a
'Wikipedia citation' link to Open Library. For example:
http://openlibrary.org/books/OL17963918M/An_inland_voyage
At the bottom of the page on the right is this:
Download catalog record: RDF / JSON | Wikipedia citation
The
> Hey Daniel,
>
> Bibsonomy seems to suffer from the same problem as CiteULike - urls
> which convey no meaning. An example url id from CiteULike is 2434335,
> and one from Bibsonomy is 29be860f0bdea4a29fba38ef9e6dd6a09. I hope to
> continue to steer the conversation away from that direction. Thes
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
> >> 1) The first three author names separated by slashes
> > why not separate by pluses? they don't form part of names either, and
> > don't cause problems with wiki page titles.
>
> I like this... however, how would you represent this in a U
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 5:49 AM, Finn Aarup Nielsen wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, Jodi Schneider wrote:
>
> On 21 Jul 2010, at 09:42, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
>>
>>> Kang+Hsu+Krajbich+2009+the+wick+in
>>>
>> This seems best to me of what's proposed so far.
>>
>>> Both seem good, though i w
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, Jodi Schneider wrote:
On 21 Jul 2010, at 09:42, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
Kang+Hsu+Krajbich+2009+the+wick+in
This seems best to me of what's proposed so far.
Both seem good, though i would suggest to form a convention to ignore any
leading "the" and "a", to a more distinct
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
>>> 1) The first three author names separated by slashes
>> why not separate by pluses? they don't form part of names either, and
>> don't cause problems with wiki page titles.
>
> I like this... however, how would you represent this in a URL
Jodi Schneider schrieb:
> On 21 Jul 2010, at 09:42, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
>>> Kang+Hsu+Krajbich+2009+the+wick+in
>
> This seems best to me of what's proposed so far.
>> Both seem good, though i would suggest to form a convention to ignore any
>> leading "the" and "a", to a more distinctive 3 word
Jeff makes some good points about page numbers on public-lld (where I had
forwarded part of this conversation). -Jodi
Begin forwarded message:
> Resent-From: public-...@w3.org
> From: "Young,Jeff (OR)"
> Date: 20 July 2010 22:53:40 GMT+01:00
> To: "Tom Morris"
> Cc: "Karen Coyle" , "Jodi Schne
On 21 Jul 2010, at 09:42, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
>> Kang+Hsu+Krajbich+2009+the+wick+in
This seems best to me of what's proposed so far.
> Both seem good, though i would suggest to form a convention to ignore any
> leading "the" and "a", to a more distinctive 3 word suffix.
While that's a good id
>> 1) The first three author names separated by slashes
> why not separate by pluses? they don't form part of names either, and
> don't cause problems with wiki page titles.
I like this... however, how would you represent this in a URL? Also note that
using plusses in page names don't work with al
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Brian J Mingus
wrote:
> I like your suggestion that the abc disambiguator be chosen based on the
> first date of publication, and I also like the prospect of using slashes
> since they can't be contained in names. Using the full year is a good idea
> too. We can co
24 matches
Mail list logo
