Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Revisited result format for aggregated sources #72

Open
kermitt2 opened this issue Apr 12, 2022 · 0 comments
Open

Revisited result format for aggregated sources #72

kermitt2 opened this issue Apr 12, 2022 · 0 comments
Milestone

Comments

@kermitt2
Copy link
Owner

As we are moving to more heterogeneous sources, crossref is one bibliographical record among others. To keep everything well separated and avoid destructive merging, the headache of unified representations and the mixture of automated, rule-based and original mapping/merging, we can define the following result format for an aggregated record:

{
  "doi": "10.1028/ijijij".
  "pmid": 52627,
  "pmcid": PMC7828282,
  "crossref": {},
  "pubmed": {},
  "hal": {},
  "dblp": {},
  "unpaywall": {}
}

We would have all strong identifiers are all present in the root of the JSON response. Then each full record from the original source is added, converted into Crossref format (which is like the unixref format).

API would be extended to select sub-set of source-specific records (e.g. source=['crossref','hal']), with default covering all available sources for the bibliographical object.

Finally in case of a matching response, where a disambiguation decision is taken, we can add a matching score at the root of the response.

@kermitt2 kermitt2 added this to the 0.3 milestone Apr 12, 2022
@lfoppiano lfoppiano modified the milestones: 0.3, 0.4 Sep 16, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants