[open-bibliography] getting a personal bib library out

[Mark MacGillivray]

On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Jim Pitman <pitman at stat.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Sure it can. BibTeX is extensible, and you just add a licence field or fields.

Yes, but our parser does not read for that.


> This reminds me of a question I have about  http://bibjson.org/
> In the proposed licence BibJSON
>
> {
>    "license": [
>        {
>            "type": "copyheart",
>            "url": "http://copyheart.org/manifesto/",
>            "description": "A great license",
>            "jurisdiction": "universal"
>        }
>    ]
> }
> is it intended that this is the license of the document that the record is about, or the
> license of the record itself? This is not obvious without some documentation/convention.
> Now that Mendeley and others are slapping licenses on biblio records, this is a serious issue.

Given that we wrote the principles last year and link to them from the
front, our entire point is that bib metadata are facts. If we stick
licenses on them, they will appear licensable. so the license is about
whatever the record is about.


> I think we should tolerate obvious BibTeX equivalents of the above JSON like

This would require ongoing maintenance of the bibtex parser. We are
supposed to be trying to move away from bibtex, not support it
indefintely.


> I think a one-line indication of license just pointing to a license url in each record would be good.
> Could OKF support suitable stable urls with PD license assertions for biblio data, both records and collections?

Are you saying we should change bibjson so that license is just a string then?


Mark