[openbiblio-dev] BibServer and approaching contacts

Thu Feb 2 18:23:22 UTC 2012

>From bibsonomy for example we can already pull bibtex. Thus people can use
bibserver for their collection, which is good because individuals are our
target. Thus our approach to these orgs need only be to ask if they would
like to output bibjson and if they would like to sign the open biblio
principles.

Regarding the question of scale, yes we could do it, but why? Our interest
is the individual or small group. So the only question is helping them get
their data into bibjson, then they can build and manage their own
collection. Anyone that wants to run a bibserver containing all of dblp is
already free to do so. That should be dblp themselves, or an interested
third party.
On Feb 2, 2012 5:57 PM, "Peter Murray-Rust" <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Naomi Lillie <naomi.lillie at okfn.org>wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> Please see below from Jim which follows the discussion from Wednesday's
>> stand-up - see line 15 of http://openbiblio.okfnpad.org/catchup - all
>> comments welcome:
>>
>> We discussed some of this after Jim's machine dropped... Please correct
> if I get it wrong.
>
>
>> Before approaching BibSonomy, DBLP, or any other major biblio data
>> provider, we should confirm between us what we are asking, and have a
>> roadmap for technical communication and a clear sequence of steps to
>> proceed. We should have a fairly standard email communication, which e.g. I
>> or someone else with previous contact could send the right person, and
>> there is a clear sequence of actions that person can take, and responses
>> that can be expected on our side. Strategic issues are: do we write a
>> parser first and show them a demo?
>> I am concerned about raising expectations of our performance until we are
>> sure we can deliver. Can we embed all of BibSonomy or DBLP in BibSoup?
>> Would we want to do that?
>
>
> I think we limited this in the first instance to approaching Bibsonomy
> about adding BibJSON output.
>
>
>> Or do we only want to embed selected subsets? Or allow users to curate
>> selected subsets? This issue arises generically with any large source.
>
>
> If there is an Open licence then the issues is primarily of being good
> citizens (e.g. responsible downloading and giving credit). If not, then the
> licence issues are the most immediate ones
>
>
>> With DBLP we have an open license already, so I think we should demo
>> capability before asking for anything more.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> I already wrote a crude DBLP parser, and this could easily be
>> improved/installed. We should have a plan for these things, before we open
>> up negotiations. I think our strategic aim should be to recruit DBLP and
>> BibSonomy as early nodes of the BKN which will  provide proof of concept
>> and demo the value of BibJSON and BibServer installations over BibJSON. I'd
>> like to hear what Mark thinks about the technical feasibility of our
>> operating on this scale before continuing.
>>
>
> Sound reasonable. My view is that we should have something new and
> complementary to offer. Some sites may welcome additional means of
> distribution, while others may see this as an extra burden.
>
>>
>> > secondly, re Rufus's discussion points and your following comments, 'a)
>> installation of at least one public facing bibserver on a machine not
>> controlled by cottagelabs/OKF', please could you follow up with people @
>> Berkeley about getting a BibServer installed there, as this is an easy win
>> if that can be sorted!
>>
>> This is easier said than done. I can keep pushing on this, but I cannot
>> promise you a time line. My own personal interest puts higher priority on a
>> SaS arrangement with Mark for the Probability Web. I am sick and tired of
>> pleading with sys admins and other dept staff to provide adequate support.
>> Peter is familiar with the problem.
>
>
> We shouldn't push too much at closed doors. I think there will soon be a
> number of opportunities. I am talking with Open publishers (in the most
> general sense) and we are mutually keen to explore what this type of
> technology can offer.
>
>
>> I just want a BibServer that I can easily manage and control and that
>> will serve the communities I care about. I continue to hope Mark can
>> provide that on a SaS basis. I think Mark you need to be looking at other
>> places for installs so you get direct feedback with about what the
>> obstacles are to be overcome. I do have a number of possible places we
>> could consider approaching.
>>
>
> My understanding is that it is possible to run this from the cloud? What
> are the issues involved?
> * Money.
> * updates
> * customisation
>
> These are all addressable when there is funding - we need to get an idea
> of scale.
>
>   But there will be some parsing/scripting work to be done.
>
>
> Yes. I have just looked at the Pubmed RIS. It needs work.
>
>
>> Probably we should proceed in parallel on these and others. But I am
>> unclear what the steps are, because we have not even done one yet.
>>
>
> the Pubmed is a good place to start.
>
>
>>
>> --
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069
>
> _______________________________________________
> openbiblio-dev mailing list
> openbiblio-dev at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/openbiblio-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/openbiblio-dev/attachments/20120202/9726e933/attachment.html>