- From: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:14:36 +0100
- To: Rob Warren <warren@muninn-project.org>
- Cc: public-lod community <public-lod@w3.org>
Rob Warren <warren@muninn-project.org> writes: > 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? http://www.russet.org.uk/blog/2366 The metadata on the HTML for this article comes directly from the metadata that I entered into arXiv. I still prefer the situation where the metadata comes directly from the file with the content in it. > 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. Yes, that would be nice. > >> 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. Yes. Again, the same page provides a bibtex download (which I use for citing my own work). Phil
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2013 15:15:04 UTC