Google Scholar felt very strongly about avoiding the need for an extra round trip to get the RDF. Anything which doubles up the number of HTTP requests isn't good when you're trying to manage tens of millions of documents and keeping them up to date.
And embedding the RDF as a comment is already in very common use for CC metadata - so shouldn't Piggy Bank really support the identification of islands of RDF in comments like this?
Meanwhile though, we will try at some point to add in a proper link to the RDF as a separate URL as well, sure....
Re: the use of bibtex:article - it seems frustrating to have to pull in *so* many different ontologies to express bibliographic information.
The bibtex ontology overlaps with the PRISM ontology quite a lot, no? So pulling it in seems in some sense messy - but maybe I'm not looking at this in the right way.
But it seems to me that it would really help to have an ontology that pulled together what is needed to serve the practical needs of publishers than the messy ad hoc combinations of Bibtex/FOAF/RSS/DC/PRISM (but which could of course express equivalences with those ontologies)
Analagous to the National Library of Medicine's publisher DTD. dtd.nlm.nih.gov
Maybe the NLM can be persuaded to create (or endorse) an associated bibliographic ontology?
Matt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alf Eaton [mailto:lists_at_hubmed.org]
> Sent: 14 September 2005 17:44
> To: general_at_simile.mit.edu
> Subject: Re: structured bibliographic info for BioMed Central articles
> now available as RDF
>
>
> On 14 Sep 2005, at 18:30, Leigh Dodds wrote:
>
> > Why not also make the RDF data separately linkable,
> avoiding the need
> > for other tools to scrape the data out of the HTML? For
> IngentaConnect
> > I was going to add an "autodiscovery" link style link to associate
> > the RDF representation with the HTML version
>
> I agree. In particular, Piggy Bank isn't able to automatically
> recognise the RDF embedded in the page and make use of it.
>
> Also, is there a reason why it's an RSS item, rather than something
> from a more appropriate ontology (say, a bibtex:article, for example)?
>
> alf.
>
>
This email has been scanned by Postini.
For more information please visit
http://www.postini.com
Received on Wed Sep 14 2005 - 17:34:12 EDT