translators

> `<meta>` tags "using the Google/Highwire key-value system" sounds prommising -- but I'm having trouble finding a list of valid keys at the documentation linked to! They're in the Indexing section of the linked Google page, just formatted in a particularly unreadable manner: https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html#in... That will let you specify a PDF (`citation_pdf_url`) as well. Should be mostly self-explanatory, but you can see Zotero's mappings here: https://github.com/zotero/translators/blob/b18eeac0f770c698f... > I wish there was a way I could provide the cite in CSL! We're planning to support `<link>` elements to any supported format — basically a modern replacement for unAPI, which went defunct before CSL could be listed as an option — but CSL wouldn't let you specify a PDF anyway. And most sites want the search

Looks like the Zotero devs have already done that [1]. You can probably just vendor the repo in a browser extension, I'd think. [1] https://github.com/zotero/translators

That's one problem with relying on automatically extracted information - sometimes it's not really what you want. In this case that's just what GitHub puts in the og:description tag for large? repos, probably to make it appear that way on Google. Of course I could fix it for this instance but then it wouldn't really accurately represent what you can expect... The relevant code to extract that is a Zotero Translator [1] so that's what would have to be changed for this. [1]: https://github.com/zotero/translators/blob/master/GitHub.js

Since the formal semantic failed to become massively used, everyone is trying to make sense of the Web using scraping. It's something most viable sites should want to get behind, from ecommerce where you can find the best price faster to education. But I suspect if a very good shared scraping system were created we'd see countermeasures pretty fast, from timid content producers, as well as the Googles who want to have exclusive access to this level of information. Yet it's a natural layer for a shared commons, and what can be built on that, when finally get past the mess of arbitrary representations, is very exciting. Anyone know of any standard to create interoperable scrapers? In Javascript, of course. Here's one submission: https://github.com/zotero/translators

> I've been building a library of ScraperJSON definitions for academic publisher sites, and I've converged on some formats that work for a majority of publishers with no modification (because they silently follow undocumented standards like the HighWire metadata). We've got a growing community of volunteers who will keep the definitions up to date for hundreds or thousands of journals. If you also use our scraper definitions for your metadata you'll get all the publishers for free. My approach has been to use the Zotero translators, since their 200,000 users have been alright at responding to publisher site changes. Unfortunately they are trapped in the Firefox ecosystem until someone converts their translators to generic js. Then Zotero could be a downstream consumer of the same scrapers, but also maybe maintain them as well. zotero's sc

> I think Mendeley had more advantages over Zotero than the social aspect > (which I never used). Mendeley could automatically incorporate your > folder of orphan PDFs into your library So can Zotero. http://www.zotero.org/support/retrieve_pdf_metadata > automatically fetching the bibliographic info. https://github.com/zotero/translators https://github.com/zotero/translation-server (Those two repositories are the greatest things about Zotero, in my opinion. Holy crap.) > It had a nice dedicated desktop client for searching your library Zotero standalone seems to be listed here very prominently: http://www.zotero.org/download/

Mek, this is great. Thanks for sharing & open-sourcing it. I love the idea of bringing together paper discussions online - whether post-publication peer review like f1000research.com or more casual discussion like r/science. One challenge I've found is that it's often difficult for discussion sites to gain sufficient traction to build a critical mass of discussion - http://plasmyd.com, http://papercritic.com, http://scicombinator.com, http://chemfeeds.com. I wonder if focusing on supporting existing small-group interactions (real-life journal clubs) would help? I took a slightly different approach when I wrote http://www.papernautapp.com and chose instead to aggregate existing discussions about academic papers (mostly blogs, a few news sites, HN, and r/science, with a goal to cover to more sites and mailing lists). It's also freely li