Page 2 of 2

Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 7:37 am
by jblander
Jon wrote:But what is the PubMed equivalent, then, that would allow you to look up the reference information (author, title, etc.) based on the doi and get it back in an intelligible form?
I don't think there is an equivalent in, say, the humanities, or individual disciplines within, or at least one that would catalog the DOIs. (JSTOR and Philosopher's Index don't have DOIs.) But I could be wrong. I was thinking, instead, that the DOI could be matched against the particular journal publishers' databases online, e.g., journals.cambridge.org.

If it's worth pursuing, I can send you sample PDFs from Cambridge, Oxford, Springer, and Informaworld.

Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 7:52 am
by Jon
Hi,

Thanks for the info. I looked at journals.cambridge.org, and although I can see the reference information for a particular book, it's not in a tagged format, so importing becomes problematic (plus, it could change at any time, as there is no API). In addition, assuming there are other sites like this, they would output the information entirely differently. What is sorely needed is a central repository, like PubMed, that provides the information in a standard form regardless of publisher. Google Scholar has the promise to be such a thing, but they don't have an API, either. If they ever offer one, we'll be very glad to look into this again.

Jon
Sonny Software

Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 10:03 am
by shuyi
Jon wrote:Hi,

Thanks for the info. I looked at journals.cambridge.org, and although I can see the reference information for a particular book, it's not in a tagged format, so importing becomes problematic (plus, it could change at any time, as there is no API). In addition, assuming there are other sites like this, they would output the information entirely differently. What is sorely needed is a central repository, like PubMed, that provides the information in a standard form regardless of publisher. Google Scholar has the promise to be such a thing, but they don't have an API, either. If they ever offer one, we'll be very glad to look into this again.

Jon
Sonny Software
Hi Jon,

Since I'm not sure what information would help you along these lines, I don't know if this information will assist you or not. It looks like JSTOR works with CrossRef and "deposits DOIs, metadata and URLs with CrossRef for many articles in the [JSTOR] archive":

http://www.jstor.org/help/dois.html

However, as you mentioned in this thread,

http://www.sonnysoftware.com/phpBB2/vie ... t=crossref

it appears that CrossRef is a much different beast than PubMed. CrossRef does appear to have an API (though I don't know enough about this to know if this would work in the topic under discussion):

http://doi.crossref.org/doc/userdoc.html

Also, CrossRef can be used via OpenURL in the meantime:

http://www.crossref.org/03libraries/16openurl.html

I'm not sure if any of this information helps or has confused and complicated the issue.

Cheers,
Chris

Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 10:23 am
by Jon
Hi,

The CrossRef doi resolver just gets you to the article on the publisher's site, at least as far as I can see (Bookends already allows you to get to the article if you have the doi). I don't see a central source of citation information though. You know, a tagged (or at least uniform) list of the article's authors, title, etc. that Bookends can import. That's what PubMed provides. Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but I don't see that at any of these sites.

Jon
Sonny Software

Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 12:59 pm
by shuyi
Jon wrote:Hi,

The CrossRef doi resolver just gets you to the article on the publisher's site, at least as far as I can see (Bookends already allows you to get to the article if you have the doi). I don't see a central source of citation information though. You know, a tagged (or at least uniform) list of the articles authors, title, etc. that Bookends can import. That's what PubMed provides. Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but I don't see that at any of these sites.

Jon
Sonny Software
Ah. I see. I must have misinterpreted something earlier in the thread. My apologies.

Thanks for clearing this up.

Chris