Hadn't thought much about this connection before, but it strikes me that there's scope for exploring links between BHL, GBIF, and PubMed, and viewing BHL and GBIF as part of the biomedical database landscape...
3 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
- See also http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK47081/ for prospective publishing in this domain.Mar 28, 2012
- http://iphylo.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/towards-interactive-taxonomic-article.html ), but the future is still the past in the case of taxonomy (i.e., legacy publications vastly outnumber XML-marked up ones).Yes, but uptake is relatively small so far, and there's a much larger corpus of literature that doesn't (and is unlikely to ever) use this schema. I suspect we'll be text mining for quite some time (if it's good enough for Google it's good enough for me). There's also the issue of linking stuff together, and the lack of widely shared identifiers for legacy literature and specimens limits the potential of TaxPub (never mind the fact that nobody can agree on identifiers for taxonomic names). I'm not arguing against TaxPub, XML has its uses (e.g., easy repurposing of text, such asMar 29, 2012