[openbiblio-dev] zotero / csl / mendeley JSON schema-

Karen Coyle kcoyle at kcoyle.net
Fri Nov 25 14:56:24 UTC 2011

Without looking at all of the specific bibjson fields... my guess  
would be that the only fields that you can require will be

- id (administrative, id of the metadata)
- date (administrative, date of the metadata)
- title (can be a supplied title if the resource does not have one)
- type of resource (journal article, book, sound recording, etc.)

If you require a creator of the resource then you have to allow the  
creator to be a corporation or an event (e.g. a conference) or  
"anonymous". The latter is only helpful when you know that an item was  
published anonymously, rather than a situation where the author is  
currently unknown or not supplied.

BTW, one difficult area will be date of the resource when this is not  
known precisely. Date differences make matching of citations  
difficult. If you know that a date is approximate rather than exact  
you can take that into account. However, this would require that there  
be two different date fields, one for "known and precise" and one for  
"best guess." The other situation is when you know the year but not  
the issue date. I suppose that could be handled by simply giving the  
year, and matching would take that into account?


Quoting Mark MacGillivray <mark.macgillivray at okfn.org>:

> Hi all,
> There is a JSON schema used by Zotero / CSL that covers a lot of the
> sort of biblio metadata one might want to put in a bibliographic
> record:
> https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/blob/master/csl-data.json
> This may form a basis for a good set of recommended keys for any
> representation of bibliographic metadata in JSON.
> This also brings up the further point about bibjson - what keys would
> we define, if any, as required? I am still for being very flexible on
> this, and accepting pretty much any valid JSON. But where people want
> to rely on being able to pull particular values from within particular
> keys, some consensus is required (although we can also just use
> namespaces on the keys).
> So a question for the list to consider - to what extent would a
> community convention be valuable for sharing metadata in this format?
> Mark
> _______________________________________________
> openbiblio-dev mailing list
> openbiblio-dev at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/openbiblio-dev

Karen Coyle
kcoyle at kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

More information about the openbiblio-dev mailing list