Re: SRU

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
71 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: SRU

Mike Taylor
> Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 20:05:00 +0200
> From: Matthias Steffens <[hidden email]>
>
>>>> Perhaps.  We could have the database remember which was the first
>>>> Janensch 1929 paper it was told about, and have that one remain
>>>> in use whenever plain "Janensch1929" is used?
>>>
>>> Yep, that would be a good rule. Still, it would only work within
>>> the scope of *one* database. What if there are two or more
>>> databases where different Janensch articles from 1929 were
>>> identified as "Janensch1929"?
>
>> So are you saying we need to use "Janensch1929p39W" from the get-go?
>>
>> (If so, the "JanenschW1929p39" would be less offensive.)
>
> Well, I fear that there are cases were even "Janensch1929p39W" isn't
> unique. In fact, any cite key may fail that does not include all of
> the important bibliographic source info.

Absolutely true.  This is why I am calling these keys "nearly unique".
We have to judge where the trade-off is between a tiny bit more
uniqueness and the extra verbosity/opacity that it requires.  My own
feeling is that Janensch1929p39W is at, or maybe beyond, the point
where it's worth adding more stuff in.

Here's what I'd like to be able to say:

        \cite{Janensch1929}
        \cite{Janensch1929p39}
        \cite{Janensch1929p39W}
in ascending order of whether-I-need-it-ness, and _if_ that fails:
        \cite{doi:1234.5678/abcdefg}
for articles that have DOIs, and
        \cite{openurl:rft.aulast=Janensch&...}
for those that don't.

> In our database we have the same problem with naming of files that
> are associated with a given database entry. We use the DOI if
> available, otherwise we use file names like
>
> Angel1994Nature367p126.pdf
> Thomas+Dieckmann2004Science276p394.pdf
> AdamsEtal2001MarBiol138p281.pdf
>
> However, while these names *may* be unique (who knows if they really
> are!?) they are ugly when used as cite keys within a document -- but
> they are still better than a DOI number, IMHO.

Yes.  To me, they are past the point of being easily typable.  I can
throw in a quick \cite{WilsonSereno1998} without thinking about, and
the goal has to be to make that possible in 95% of cases where the
data allows.

 _/|_ ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <[hidden email]>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it"
         -- Attributed to an anonymous senior US military officer.

--
Listen to free demos of soundtrack music for film, TV and radio
        http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/soundtrack/



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: SRU

Mike Taylor
In reply to this post by Bruce D'Arcus-3
> Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 13:53:33 -0400
> From: Bruce D'Arcus <[hidden email]>
>
> > So are you saying we need to use "Janensch1929p39W" from the get-go?
> >
> > (If so, the "JanenschW1929p39" would be less offensive.)
>
> For reference, there's a long thread in the comments on this:
>
> http://netapps.muohio.edu/blogs/darcusb/darcusb/archives/2004/11/27/citation-ids

Thanks, there are some interestingn ideas here.

(I've _got_ to stop getting involved in these things!  :-)

 _/|_ ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <[hidden email]>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "St. Augustine [...] came up with the conclusion that the story
         in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 was not a simple historical sequence
         of events.  It just couldn't be.  It's not what the words meant.
         It just wasn't" -- Robert Bakker.

--
Listen to free demos of soundtrack music for film, TV and radio
        http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/soundtrack/



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: SRU

Dr Robert Sanderson
In reply to this post by Bruce D'Arcus-3
>> A user profile of citekey to article unique id seems to be the most
>> appropriate solution.
> Can you explain this Rob in jargon-free language?

Each user has a map between their own citation key (eg Sanderson05) and
the globally unique identifier for the article
(doi://dlib.org/sanderson/05/03/sandersonLevanYoung03 or whatever)
and the system does the mapping at search time.

Rob



       ,'/:.          Dr Robert Sanderson ([hidden email])
     ,'-/::::.        http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~azaroth/
   ,'--/::(@)::.      Dept. of Computer Science, Room 805
,'---/::::::::::.    University of Liverpool
____/:::::::::::::.
I L L U M I N A T I  Cheshire3 IR System:  http://www.cheshire3.org/


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: SRU

Bruce D'Arcus-3
In reply to this post by Mike Taylor
On 5/17/05, Mike Taylor <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thanks, there are some interestingn ideas here.
>
> (I've _got_ to stop getting involved in these things!  :-)

Look at it this way: the time you wasted now may be saved many times
over in the future if you end up with better tools ;-)

Bruce


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: SRU

Bruce D'Arcus-3
In reply to this post by Dr Robert Sanderson
On 5/17/05, Dr Robert Sanderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >> A user profile of citekey to article unique id seems to be the most
> >> appropriate solution.
> > Can you explain this Rob in jargon-free language?
>
> Each user has a map between their own citation key (eg Sanderson05) and
> the globally unique identifier for the article
> (doi://dlib.org/sanderson/05/03/sandersonLevanYoung03 or whatever)
> and the system does the mapping at search time.

How would that "map" be implemented?

Bruce


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: SRU

Mike Taylor
> Envelope-to: [hidden email]
> Delivery-date: Wed, 18 May 2005 00:42:38 +0200
> DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
>         s=beta; d=gmail.com;
>         h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
>         b=CmVBFmuet5BhvoWEN9U6urCWV7kwGLRLFLX7gnGqK/LSAKCSK3u73bHI/pB6XtgX1aFa0wbOrNvAqdNeQHdMOq+/ZVAWV2Tj2bZi5litUytmBtTnA6LZFEBdIOb1AVn7svXjmWjQHilmLbmd9+3dIJSTAwaRGSDSh9DdWRjmIUE=
> Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 18:42:36 -0400
> From: Bruce D'Arcus <[hidden email]>
>
>> Each user has a map between their own citation key (eg Sanderson05) and
>> the globally unique identifier for the article
>> (doi://dlib.org/sanderson/05/03/sandersonLevanYoung03 or whatever)
>> and the system does the mapping at search time.
>
> How would that "map" be implemented?

DBM?

(I am only half joking.  The point about the map is that it's so
trivial.  It really is just a hash-table, nothing more.)

 _/|_ ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <[hidden email]>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "NASA Delays Shuttle Launch Out Of Sheer Habit" -- headline
         from www.theonion.com

--
Listen to free demos of soundtrack music for film, TV and radio
        http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/soundtrack/



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: SRU

Dr Robert Sanderson
>>> Each user has a map between their own citation key (eg Sanderson05)
>>> and the globally unique identifier for the article and the system does
>>> the mapping at search time.

>> How would that "map" be implemented?

> DBM?
> (I am only half joking.  The point about the map is that it's so
> trivial.  It really is just a hash-table, nothing more.)

Right.   In the CQL you'd do something like:

xbib.userCiteKey any "sandy05 taylor03 bdarcus04"

And the system would know that userCiteKey words need to be looked up in a
table somewhere.

Rob

       ,'/:.          Dr Robert Sanderson ([hidden email])
     ,'-/::::.        http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~azaroth/
   ,'--/::(@)::.      Dept. of Computer Science, Room 805
,'---/::::::::::.    University of Liverpool
____/:::::::::::::.
I L L U M I N A T I  Cheshire3 IR System:  http://www.cheshire3.org/


1234