Benjamin – agreed, I too see Wikidata as mainly a place to hold all the mappings. Once we support federated queries in WDQS, the benefit of ID mapping (over extensive data ingestion) will become even more apparent.

Hope Andrew and other interested parties can pick up this thread.

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Benjamin Good <ben.mcgee.good@gmail.com> wrote:

Dario,

One message you can send is that they can and should use existing controlled vocabularies and ontologies to construct the metadata they want to share.  For example, MeSH descriptors would be a good way for them to organize the 'primary topic' assertions for their articles and would make it easy to find the corresponding items in Wikidata when uploading.  Our group will be continuing to expand coverage of identifiers and concepts from vocabularies like that in Wikidata - and any help there from publishers would be appreciated!  

My view here is that Wikidata can be a bridge to the terminologies and datasets that live outside it - not really a replacement for them.  So, if they have good practices about using shared vocabularies already, it should (eventually) be relatively easy to move relevant assertions into the WIkidata graph while maintaining interoperability and integration with external software systems.  

-Ben

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 8:31 AM, 'Daniel Mietchen' via wikicite-discuss <wikicite-discuss@wikimedia.org> wrote:

I'm traveling ( https://twitter.com/EvoMRI/status/793736211009536000
), so just in brief:
In terms of markup, some general comments are in
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK159964/ , which is not specific
to Hindawi but partly applies to them too.

A problem specific to Hindawi (cf.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Media_from_Hindawi) is the
bundling of the descriptions of all supplementary files, which
translates into uploads like
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Evolution-of-Coronary-Flow-in-an-Experimental-Slow-Flow-Model-in-Swines-Angiographic-and-623986.f1.ogv
(with descriptions for nine files)
and eight files with no description, e.g.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Evolution-of-Coronary-Flow-in-an-Experimental-Slow-Flow-Model-in-Swines-Angiographic-and-623986.f2.ogv
.

There are other problems in their JATS, and it would be good if they
would participate in
http://jats4r.org/ . Happy to dig deeper with Andrew or whoever is interested.

Where they are ahead of the curve is licensing information, so they
could help us set up workflows to get that info into Wikidata.

In terms of triple suggestions to Wikidata:
- as long as article metadata is concerned, I would prefer to
concentrate on integrating our workflows with the major repositories
of metadata, to which publishers are already posting. They could help
us by using more identifiers (e.g. for authors, affiliations, funders
etc.), potentially even from Wikidata (e.g. for keywords/ P921, for
both journals and articles) and by contributing to the development of
tools (e.g. a bot that goes through the CrossRef database every day
and creates Wikidata items for newly published papers).
- if they have ways to extract statements from their publication
corpus, it would be good if they would let us/ ContentMine/ StrepHit
etc. know, so we could discuss how to move this forward.
d.

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Dario Taraborelli
<dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> I'm at the Crossref LIVE 16 event in London where I just gave a presentation
> on WikiCite and Wikidata targeted at scholarly publishers.
>
> Beside Crossref and Datacite people, I talked to a bunch of folks interested
> in collaborating on Wikidata integration, particularly from PLOS, Hindawi
> and Springer Nature. I started an interesting discussion with Andrew Smeall,
> who runs strategic projects at Hindawi, and I wanted to open it up to
> everyone on the lists.
>
> Andrew asked me if – aside from efforts like ContentMine and StrepHit –
> there are any recommendations for publishers (especially OA publishers) to
> mark up their contents and facilitate information extraction and entity
> matching or even push triples to Wikidata to be considered for ingestion.
>
> I don't think we have a recommended workflow for data providers for
> facilitating triple suggestions to Wikidata, other than leveraging the
> Primary Sources Tool. However, aligning keywords and terms with the
> corresponding Wikidata items via ID mapping sounds like a good first step. I
> pointed Andrew to Mix'n'Match as a handy way of mapping identifiers, but if
> you have other ideas on how to best support 2-way integration of Wikidata
> with scholarly contents, please chime in.
>
> Dario
>
> --
>
> Dario Taraborelli  Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
> wikimediafoundation.org • nitens.org • @readermeter
>
> --
> WikiCite 2016 – May 26-26, 2016, Berlin
> Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite_2016
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/wikicite16
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "wikicite-discuss" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to wikicite-discuss+unsubscribe@wikimedia.org.

--
WikiCite 2016 – May 26-26, 2016, Berlin
Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite_2016
Twitter: https://twitter.com/wikicite16
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "wikicite-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wikicite-discuss+unsubscribe@wikimedia.org.

--

Dario Taraborelli  Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
wikimediafoundation.org • nitens.org • @readermeter 

--
WikiCite 2016 – May 26-26, 2016, Berlin
Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite_2016
Twitter: https://twitter.com/wikicite16
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "wikicite-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wikicite-discuss+unsubscribe@wikimedia.org.