- From: Yolanda Gil <gil@ISI.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:29:57 -0800
- To: Paolo Missier <pmissier@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: Bertram Ludaescher <ludaesch@ucdavis.edu>, Simon Miles <drsimonmiles@googlemail.com>, public-xg-prov@w3.org
Paolo et al: This looks very nice, thanks for assembling this. Perhaps the few papers listed in the wiki at: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Provenance_Survey#Links_to_Papers could be added to the Mendeley collection, so we have them all in one place? There is a pointer to the Mendeley collection from the wiki already. I also added pointers to additional surveys to the wiki, but I think those should stay there as they are surveys. Thanks, Yolanda On Nov 12, 2009, at 10:26 AM, Paolo Missier wrote: > Hi Bertram > > I guess we can briefly discuss this tomorrow, I am sure we each have > our own pet site or system for bibliography, and I am not sure I > want to spend a lot of time arguing the pros and cons of each. > Perhaps a view over multiple public collections, made possible by > agreeing on a few tags, is all we need? > > Cheers, -Paolo > >> In my group we've been using Bibsonomy with good success: >> http://www.bibsonomy.org/ >> >> I like the flexible export formats, including bibtex, various forms >> of HTML, Jason etc. >> Comes also with all of DBLP "pre-loaded", has group support, Jabref >> support etc. >> >> What are the criteria by which we should decide on a system? >> >> Bertram >
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 19:31:43 UTC