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(a)gmail.com
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(a)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-Coronar
> y-Flow-in-an-Experimental-Slow-Flow-Model-in-Swines-Angiogra
> phic-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-Coronar
> y-Flow-in-an-Experimental-Slow-Flow-Model-in-Swines-Angiogra
> phic-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(a)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(a)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(a)wikimedia.org.
>
>
• @readermeter
<http://twitter.com/readermeter>
--
WikiCite 2016 – May 26-26, 2016, Berlin
Meta:
---
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(a)wikimedia.org.