- From: Andrea Splendiani <andrea.splendiani@iscb.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:34:14 +0100
- To: Rob Warren <warren@muninn-project.org>
- Cc: phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk (Phillip Lord), public-lod community <public-lod@w3.org>
Hi, on the other hand... many journals offer an extremely tedious submission and formatting process. Scientists are usually ok with it, though it sometimes is close to nonsensical. On the other hand, there is lot of objection to adding some metadata, that is only a marginal cost in term of time (or at least has a much higher value per time spent). I wonder why... best, Andrea Il giorno 25/apr/2013, alle ore 15:11, Rob Warren <warren@muninn-project.org> ha scritto: > > On 25-Apr-13, at 10:41 AM, Phillip Lord wrote: >> Scientists would rather eat their dogs than give up their favoured >> editing environments. > > And chew off their own (or their RA's) foot as well. > > Most conference submission / reviewing software already asks for the basic meta-data boilerplate to help the reviewing process (authors, title, affiliation, etc...) and this is manually entered before the paper is ready. > > Why don't we generate the meta-data directly from this process and not bother with the hand editing of anything? It would not be a stretch to get people to submit their citations file (Bibtex, RIS, etc...) along with the paper at camera ready and script the conversion to something semantic web friendly? > > This would neatly create the publications, citation and author graph in a stroke. > >> Solution 2. Make it valuable to the authors. > > Outcome 1: Make it valuables to the social bookmarking / citation websites downstream to load directly into their systems and increase the visibility of the publication. > > -rhw >
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2013 14:34:40 UTC