W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-prov@w3.org > September 2010

Re: permanence of mendeley's urls

From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijov@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 18:30:36 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=o66cz7xA1ALhBn6N-6XPmhYvUv8SNjZXZgKQA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yolanda Gil <gil@isi.edu>
Cc: pmissier@acm.org, Simon Miles <drsimonmiles@gmail.com>, public-xg-prov@w3.org
Hi all,
We haven't discussed this in the meeting at the end, but I'd like to know if
we can manage the current Mendeley's tags with BibBase. I find the tags very
useful, and it would be a shame to lose them if we change the tool.
Best,
Daniel

2010/9/3 Yolanda Gil <gil@isi.edu>

> Paolo:
>
> Sounds good.  BibBase just won honorable mention in the Open Track of the
> Linked Data Triplification Challenge :)  So we would be really using
> Semantic Web technology then!
>
> Yolanda
>
>
>
> On Sep 3, 2010, at 3:53 AM, Paolo Missier wrote:
>
>  Simon,
>>  I completely agree that having non-unique references to papers in the
>> Mendeley corpus wont' help anyone. I think DOIs should be used as the
>> authoritative reference whenever possible, and "any" link to the Mendeley
>> entry for the paper should  be added as a convenience to provide quick
>> access to the PDF, if that's associated with the entry, and to a reference.
>>  But if this is to be used by authors who use the references in their
>> papers, then I think a bibtex entry would be important -- and that doesn't
>> seem to be available.
>>
>> A while ago Yolanda proposed to use BibBase (http://www.bibbase.org/) as
>> a way to publish our collection as a whole on a Web site, and I think it is
>> an excellent idea as it can be done using the bibtex file that Mendeley
>> generates behind the scenes, exposing all its entries for each paper (I have
>> happily used to publish my own publications)
>>  maybe something we can briefly touch upon in the call?
>>
>> Cheers, -Paolo
>>
>>
>> On 03/09/2010 11:42, Simon Miles wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I've been working on the citation links for the state of the art
>>> discussed last week, and have a few comments about linking to Mendeley
>>> from the Wiki, as it may affect how we cite in any report we put on
>>> the Wiki.
>>>
>>> We said in the telecon that the reason for linking to the articles in
>>> Mendeley (rather than DOI, for example) was to allow people to know
>>> about and use our Mendeley collection.  However, if you click on the
>>> Mendeley paper links, the pages you reach don't have any mention of
>>> our collection, so I'm afraid this won't work.  For example, try
>>> clicking on the links in the News Aggregator state of the art - a
>>> Mendeley page on the paper is reached, but no mention that the paper
>>> is in our collection.
>>>
>>> Also, there are multiple URLs per paper, depending on how you find the
>>> article: you get one if you find it through browsing our collection,
>>> another if you find it through browsing Mendeley's own categorisation,
>>> and a third if you search on the paper title, with apparently no way
>>> to translate one to another.  I believe the third kind is used in the
>>> News Aggregator state of the art, which is fine except that, as Daniel
>>> said, not all articles in our collection are found on searching, so I
>>> can't use it consistently for my scenario's state of the art.
>>>
>>> Maybe I'm just missing something in my use of Mendeley, but I suggest
>>> that linking to the papers on Mendeley from the Wiki may be too much
>>> trouble for too little gain.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Simon
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Friday, 3 September 2010 16:31:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 3 September 2010 16:31:14 GMT