[openbiblio-dev] Best practice for name format in BibJSON
pitman at stat.Berkeley.EDU
Fri Feb 24 18:05:00 UTC 2012
Karen Coyle <kcoyle at kcoyle.net> wrote:
> Excellent analysis by Jakob on names. This is an often-garbled area of
> > Agreed - this is what I was thinking too - to have "name" and also
> > "firstname", "lastname" keys where possible, and still also
> > "alternate" if someone wishes to provide them.
> Yes, although remember that "alternate" may also need "first" "last" and
> a simple string. Basically, "alternate" is another type of name, worthy
> of structuring.
> That said, it may be best to leave alternates for a name record, rather
> than putting them in the bibliographic record.
Yes! This is definitely where they belong. All the record needs to do is provide the identifier for hooking to the name record.
> The subject of the
> alternate name is the person, not the bibliographic data, and it's not
> clear to me that many people would include such alternates in citation
> data, especially since they would need to be repeated in each citation.
Right. Most citation data comes without name records. But these can be created by further processing. I have done a lot of that sort of work.
> I know that bibjson isn't going so far as to create separate records for
On the contrary, BibJSON has had capability to provide records for people and
organizations right from the beginning, simply by borrowing from FOAF/BIBO/...
namespaces as needed. I have extensive BibJSON stores of people records in
mathematics, probably a million or so, which need deduplication work.
> but as soon as you start adding more person information that
> becomes a logical step. Most of the "scholarly citation" systems that
> I'm aware of do have a separate person information record, then link
> from the person record to the citation record. This allows one to create
> an extensive personal profile, with CVs and awards and grants, etc.
Yes. This is an expected use of BibJSON/BibServer. There are several academic
initiatives in this direction which we should aim to connect to: Open Scholar (collaboration agreed in principle) Vivo (not approached recently: they are wary about sharing data)
> Essentially, the question becomes: how far to go down this road within
> the citation metadata?
All the way!
> Also, I notice that there is an "id:" element in the person name area. I
> presume that this could be used for ORCID or researcherID, etc. Will the
> type of ID be clear from the text? I don't know how people generally use
> these, and if they are full URNs or URIs or not.
Brings us to the basic issue of regularizing ids for whatever entities:
See e.g. https://gist.github.com/1884546 and
the recent " Counting identifiers in Editions" thread beneath
I think this needs a separate discussion and some collab doc space to develop
best practices for ids in BibJSON. I'd be glad to start a Google Doc on
this. Any volunteers to work on it?
Professor of Statistics and Mathematics
University of California
367 Evans Hall # 3860
Berkeley, CA 94720-3860
ph: 510-642-9970 fax: 510-642-7892
e-mail: pitman at stat.berkeley.edu
More information about the openbiblio-dev