[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Publishing Research Consortium Study on Journal Article Mining
- To: "liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu" <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
- Subject: Re: Publishing Research Consortium Study on Journal Article Mining
- From: Laval Hunsucker <amoinsde@yahoo.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:30:31 EDT
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> ** More content standardization for mining-friendly formats I take this to be an infelicitous slip in the formulation. (Or is it?) The report itself does speak of 'standardizing content', but more often, in a facile way, of 'standardizing content formats'. We may hope that the former is just shorthand for the latter. But even so, I'm quite curious (and a little trepidatious) how that will work, with its "common ontologies", in cases where we're talking (as is here the case) about social sciences and especially humanities articles as "new areas" for content mining. Anybody know more about that? Specific ideas? Laval Hunsucker Breukelen, Nederland
- Prev by Date: Re: query about the Big Deal
- Next by Date: Re: query about the Big Deal
- Previous by thread: Publishing Research Consortium Study on Journal Article Mining
- Next by thread: ALA DG - supporting changes in scholarly communication
- Index(es):