On 21 Jul 2010, at 19:47, Brian J Mingus wrote:
Finn,
I'm not a fan of including a portion of the the title for a couple of reasons. First,
it's not required to make the key unique. Second, it makes the key longer than
necessary. Third, the first word or words from a title are not guaranteed to convey any
meaning.
Regarding a Reference: namespace, I can see how this has some utility and why projects
have moved to it. However, I consider it a stopgap solution that projects have implemented
when what they really want is a proper wiki for citations. Here are a few quick things
that you can't do (or would have to go out of your way to do) with just a Reference
namespace that you can do with a wiki dedicated to all the world's citations:
- Custom reports that are boolean combinations of citation fields, ala SMW. This requires
substantive new technology as SMW doesn't scale.
- User bibliographies which are a logical subset of all literature ever published.
Not sure why a Reference namespace couldn't do this.
- Conduct a search of the literature.
Or this (you can search just one namespace)
- A new set of policies that are not necessarily NPOV,
regarding the creation of articles that discuss collections of literature (lit review-like
concept). The content of these policies will emerge over years with the help of a
community. These articles could, for instance, help people who are navigating a new area
of a literature avoid getting stuck in local minima. It could point out the true global
context to them. It could point out experimenter biases in the literature; for example, a
recent article was published where it was found that citation networks in academic
literature can have a tendency to form based on the assumption of authority, when in fact
that authority is false, bringing a whole thread of publications into doubt.
I'm not sure that literature reviews belong in the same wiki as citations. That's
definitely a different namespace. :)
- Create wiki articles about individual sources.
This might or might not be the same wiki -- but that could be interesting.
I could imagine a page for a journal being pulled in from several sources: the collection
of citations in the wiki for that journal, RSS from the current contents (license
permitting), a Wikipedia page about the journal (if it exists), a link to author
guidelines/submission info, open access info from SHERPA/ROMEO, .... In this vision, very
little of the content "lives" in this wiki itself. Rather, it's templated
from numerous other places.... Perhaps in the way "buy this book" links are
handled in librarything -- there are numerous external links which can be activated with a
checkbox, and some external content that is pulled in based on copyright review.
While I am not dedicated to any of these things happening, I also do not wish to rule
them out. The hope is that a new community will emerge around the project and guide it in
the direction that is most useful. My hope in this thread is that we can identify some of
the most likely cases and imagine what it will be like, so that we can convey this vision
to the Foundation and they can get a sense of the potential importance of the project.
Scoping is a big problem, I think -- because it would help to have a vision of which of
several related tasks/endpoints is primary.
I think an investigation of what fr.wikipedia is doing would be really useful -- does
anybody edit there, or have an interest in digging into that? Questions might include:
What is the reference namespace doing? What isn't it doing, that they wish it would?
Did they consider alternatives to a namespace? How is maintenance going? Do they see the
reference namespace as longstanding into the future, or as a stopgap?
-Jodi