This post is primarily to welcome these developments and add some general comments.
The style of the two sites is different and they appear to be completely independent. They are somewhat complementary ...
I think both sites use the WP title and URL as the primary identifier in WP. WP also has a set of numeric identifiers which I think represents the internal WP uniquification system. This may matter at some time as WP entries can be deleted or moved while the identifiers are sacrosanct.
Both sites have a search capability (I have not compared them). I may have missed it but there was no clear way to download results.
It is not clear what the ingestion strategy is for either site. ...
I am not clear what data transformation (if any) is carried out automatically by the ingest process. ... An ingestion program either has to deal with all lexical variants (quite a problem) or simply ingest the string. ... Scientific units are not always easy to extract.
Does either site have an RSS feed for new entries? ...
Our own work on collections of common compounds using RDF is progressing well though it has been technically harder than we thought mainly due to variability in data input. ... We shall, of course make our results freely and Openly available, modulo the difficult issues which have been raised about data sharing are re-use.
Posted by
Gavin Baker at 5/15/2008 04:31:00 PM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
