On 09 July 2020 at 09:27 Jakob Voß
<jakob.voss(a)gbv.de> wrote:
I cannot force anyone how to organize references to
scholarly publications
and software artifacts but I would at least recommend to use Wikidata to
do so.
We can get nice overviews with Scholia, once the references are collected
and organized in Wikidata. The current coverage of natural language
generation
however is rather shallow:
https://scholia.toolforge.org/topic/Q1513879
Even if Wikidata is not the best tool to collect references, it will
surely play
some kind of role in Abstract Wikipedia, so it makes sense to get used
to it.
As a side issue, maybe (or maybe not), I will mention here a proposal I recently
heard, to import from the DBLP computer science bibliography cite to Wikidata. For those
familiar with WikiCite, the idea would simply be to do with DBLP what has been done with
PubMed. This would be a one year project, basically, using known techniques on a dataset
of 4M items.
Rather than explaining more about the bot work that would be involved there, let me just
make a basic remark: WikiCite, Scholia and the big effort so far have all concentrated on
the biomedical area. In the middle of a global pandemic, it is not likely that I shall be
thought to be criticising that emphasis.
But if Abstract Wikipedia means that more attention will be given to DBLP and Wikidata,
and any other repositories in the area that will be relevant, that would hardly be a bad
thing.
Charles