EN: I think I am not the only one who would like see that Connotea makes use Nature Precedings meta-data during the tagging procedure. So far not even the title is fetched automatically.
6 Kommentare:
Anonym
hat gesagt…
I don't see any particular advantage to linking Connotea tags with Nature Precedings articles. Also, involving the query of another large database, it can strain the software.
If tomorrow, all articles of the Nature Publishing Group get tags, would one wish Connotea tags to be automatically linked to them?
Connotea should be limited to human-supplied links only.
Maybe I didn't explain my problem clearly. I just want the meta-data copied into the form of the Connotea bookmarklet. I didn't ask for direct linking of tags in Connotea to Nature Precedings.
Personally I would like to have the tags automatically added to the form. This I see as an extra. But at the moment not even the title, authors or DOI are extracted.
I am not sure if Connotea queries the information of e.g. PubMed via an API or just parses the tagged site as done for "usual" websites. If the latter is the case then only a parser would be needed.
It is a problem that could be solved with Greasemonkey if Connotea is not implementing it.
We are working on this right now. The way we develop these products is in a very iterative way, so the meta-data for articles is being added this week to preceedings, next week we will be working on adapting the Highwire citation plugin for connotea so that it works with preceedings, and it should all be running smoothly then.
Nature now reminds me a little bit of the Google strategy. Build a lot of products and get some feedback from the community to say what to prioritize in the upgrades and which ones should be developed faster. They have know several properties that could be integrated better (Nature Network/Precedings/Connotea/Scintilla)
But like for Google there is also the other side of the coin - privacy. Well, at least the potential of abusing it's power of having access to this information is lower for Nature than for Google. Your scientific life should be more or less open anyhow. And using the data for trend scouting is legitimate in my opinion.
6 Kommentare:
I don't see any particular advantage to linking Connotea tags with Nature Precedings articles. Also, involving the query of another large database, it can strain the software.
If tomorrow, all articles of the Nature Publishing Group get tags, would one wish Connotea tags to be automatically linked to them?
Connotea should be limited to human-supplied links only.
Maybe I didn't explain my problem clearly. I just want the meta-data copied into the form of the Connotea bookmarklet. I didn't ask for direct linking of tags in Connotea to Nature Precedings.
Personally I would like to have the tags automatically added to the form. This I see as an extra. But at the moment not even the title, authors or DOI are extracted.
I am not sure if Connotea queries the information of e.g. PubMed via an API or just parses the tagged site as done for "usual" websites. If the latter is the case then only a parser would be needed.
It is a problem that could be solved with Greasemonkey if Connotea is not implementing it.
Hi Konrad,
I'm the product dev manager for connotea.
We are working on this right now. The way we develop these products is in a very iterative way, so the meta-data for articles is being added this week to preceedings, next week we will be working on adapting the Highwire citation plugin for connotea so that it works with preceedings, and it should all be running smoothly then.
- Ian
Excellent! Thanks a lot for your answer.
Nature now reminds me a little bit of the Google strategy. Build a lot of products and get some feedback from the community to say what to prioritize in the upgrades and which ones should be developed faster.
They have know several properties that could be integrated better (Nature Network/Precedings/Connotea/Scintilla)
How about iNature ;)
But like for Google there is also the other side of the coin - privacy. Well, at least the potential of abusing it's power of having access to this information is lower for Nature than for Google. Your scientific life should be more or less open anyhow. And using the data for trend scouting is legitimate in my opinion.
Kommentar veröffentlichen