TOC format is proving an obstacle

Tom Schneider toms at fcs260c2.ncifcrf.gov
Fri Dec 4 21:23:20 EST 1992


In article <CMM.0.90.2.723519739.kristoff at net.bio.net> kristoff at net.bio.net writes:
|
|I have encountered a bit of a problem trying to get some publishers to
|adapt the format rules that we normally desire for this group.
...
|What is more important to you?  To get the TOC information itself or
|to get the TOC information in more easily parseable format?

It's amazing to me that this is an issue.  Surely we will eventually want the
formats to be rigorously parsable.  Just like GenBank ...  That sad story is
that it took 10 YEARS to get the thing into a parsable format!  IT IS NOT HARD
TO WRITE A PROGRAM WHICH CREATES A RIGOROUS STANDARD FORMAT!  The program reads
a person's input and guides them.  It then spits out the format one wants.

I do not like the TOCs because they have errors in them.  I would much prefer
BiBTeX format because it can be converted to anything else and is quite
simple:

@article{Shannon1948,
author = "C. E. Shannon",
title = "A Mathematical Theory of Communication",
journal = "Bell System Tech. J.",
volume = "27",
pages = "379-423, 623-656",
year = "1948"}

If it's a choice between not getting anything and getting some crumby
primitive format, I'd say take the primitive format.  But the sooner
these things are in a good rigorous one, the sooner we can search and
manipulate them with read database tools.

  Tom Schneider
  National Cancer Institute
  Laboratory of Mathematical Biology
  Frederick, Maryland  21702-1201
  toms at ncifcrf.gov



More information about the Bioforum mailing list