On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 5:49 AM, Finn Aarup Nielsen <fn(a)imm.dtu.dk> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, Jodi Schneider wrote:
On 21 Jul 2010, at 09:42, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
Kang+Hsu+Krajbich+2009+the+wick+in
This seems best to me of what's
proposed so far.
Both seem good, though i would suggest to form a
convention to ignore any
leading "the" and "a", to a more distinctive 3 word suffix.
While that's a good idea, then we'd have to know all "indistinctive"
words
in all languages. (Die, Der, La, L', ...)
There are still going to be duplicates, alas...
Of course, it does not have to be _exactly_
three authors, nor three
words from the title, and it does not solve the
John Smith (or Zheng
Wang) problem.
It also doesn't solve issues with transliteration: Merik Möller may
become
"Moeller" or "Moller", Jakob Voß may become "Voss" or
"Vosz" or even
"VoB",
etc. In case of chinese names, it's often not easy to decide which part
is the
last name.
I have a large bibtex file where I (mostly) use Surname + one initial +
year + first important word (
http://neuro.imm.dtu.dk/software/lyngby/doc/lyngby.bib)
So for example: AaltoS2002Neuroanatomical
There are lots of special cases
"M. C. B. {\AA}berg" becomes AbergM2006Multivariate (transliterate Å)
"Anissa Abi-Dargham" AbiDarghamA2000Measurement (discard dash).
ACM computer classification system "ACM1998Computing" (an organization as
an author: do you use 'association' or 'ACM'?)
"A Content-Driven Reputation System for the {Wikipedia}" ->
AdlerB2007ContentDriven (discarding slash in title and camelcasing)
"$[^{15}$O$]$water {PET}: More ``Noise'' than Signal?" ->
StrotherS1996Owater (here we have sharp parentheses that will be a problem
in wiki text. I suppose that in chemistry it becomes even worse)
"On the Distribution of the Quotient of two chance variables" becomes
CurtissJ1941On (as 'On' here is not regarded as a stopword).
Modelling the fMRI response using smooth FIR filters ->
NielsenF2001ModelingfMRI (extra word because of collision with "Modeling of
locations in the {BrainMap} database: Detection of outliers"
With 3 author + year + title you sometimes run into collisions:
author = {J. M. Ollinger and Gordon L. Shulman and M. Corbetta},
title = {Separating Processes within a Trial in Event-Related
Functional {MRI}. {II}. Analysis},
author = {J. M. Ollinger and Gordon L. Shulman and M. Corbetta},
title = {Separating Processes within a Trial in Event-Related
Functional {MRI}. {I}. The Method},
When dealing with scientific articles it is not always possible to use the
full given name, since sometimes you just know the initial.
I know one called Vibe Frøkjær. Presumable because she is afraid the PubMed
and others will not be able to handle the Nordic letters she writes her name
as Vibe G. Frokjaer in science contexts. Other authors may write her as Vibe
G. Frøkjær.
Articles usually one have one edition. Sometimes you find reprinted
versions here and there. For books there might be different versions and you
need to find out whether you want to have the key to the 'Work',
'Expression', 'Manifestation' or 'Item' to use the wording from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_Requirements_for_Bibliographic_Reco…
The French Wikipedia has a page for each book title ('work' regardless of
language and editions). Editions are listed with multiple infoboxes on the
page. In this way there is not a one-to-one correspondence between wiki page
and, say, ISBN. It seems the best to me to have one page for a 'work' where
you collect comments. However, in citations with page numbers you need the
'expression' because of page break differences between versions.
I like the French way, except that each book has two pages: One under the
'Reference' namespace and another under the 'Template' namespace.
The French tend to use "Title (authors)" as key in the Reference namespace.
Mostly fullname:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Référence:Weaving_the_Web_(Tim_Berners-Lee)<…
But sometimes diverge a bit:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Référence:Theory_of_numbers_(HardyWright)<h…
The associated template has somewhat unpredictable name, e.g.,
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modèle:HardyWright<http://fr.wikipedia.org/…
They link in the template instatiations, e.g., "auteurs=[[Tim
Berners-Lee]], Mark Fischetti" which I still don't like and would instead
suggest:
author1=Tim Berners-Lee | author2=Mark Fischetti and templates
[[{{{author1}}}]], [[{{{author1}}}]] or perhaps better for disambig
[[{{authorlink1}}}|{{{author1}}}]], [[{{{authorlink2|{{{author2}}}]] This
way you allow for easier extraction and you do not need SMW array processing
to distinguish the names.
It seems to me that the French has come a long way. I am surprised that
only John Vandenberg has pointed to the French efforts. I was not aware of
it before.
Do anyone knows anything about the French discussions on the introduction
of the 'Reference' namespace? Should we just implement the French system on
the English Wikipedia and we are there?
/Finn
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.
- Conduct a search of the literature.
- 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.
- Create wiki articles about individual sources.
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.
Brian