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

inproceedings bibtex support? #9

Open
dpriskorn opened this issue Sep 18, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

inproceedings bibtex support? #9

dpriskorn opened this issue Sep 18, 2024 · 3 comments

Comments

@dpriskorn
Copy link

Given this
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1624025.1624060

@inproceedings{10.5555/1624025.1624060,
author = {Reinefeld, Alexander},
title = {Complete solution of the eight-puzzle and the benefit of node ordering in IDA},
year = {1993},
publisher = {Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.},
address = {San Francisco, CA, USA},
abstract = {The 8-puzzle is the largest puzzle of its type that can be completely solved. It is simple, and yet obeys a combinatorially large problem space of 91/2 states. The N \texttimes{} N extension of the 8-puzzle is NP-hard.In the first part of this paper, we present complete statistical data based on an exhaustive evaluation of all possible tile configurations. Our results include data on the expected solution lengths, the 'easiest' and 'worst' configurations, and the density and distribution of solution nodes in the search tree.In our second set of experiments, we used the 8-puzzle as a workbench model to evaluate the benefit of node ordering schemes in Iterative-Deepening A* (IDA*). One highlight of our results is that almost all IDA* implementations perform worse than would be possible with a simple random ordering of the operators.},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Artifical Intelligence - Volume 1},
pages = {248–253},
numpages = {6},
location = {Chambery, France},
series = {IJCAI'93}
}

I expected the code to fail clearly or support importing both the DOI that the article is in and the article itself

The doi https://scholia.toolforge.org/doi/10.5555/1624025.1624060 seems to not exist in crossref, so that makes scholia fail.

@larsgw
Copy link
Member

larsgw commented Sep 19, 2024

I'm not sure what you mean.

In spite of the URL format, "10.5555/1624025.1624060" is not a registered DOI (see e.g. https://doi.org/ra/10.5555/1624025.1624060). Importing the BibTeX seems to work okay:

	CREATE
	LAST	P31	Q23927052
	LAST	Len	"Complete solution of the eight-puzzle and the benefit of node ordering in IDA"
	LAST	P304	"248-253"
	LAST	P577	+1993-01-01T00:00:00Z/9
	LAST	P1104	6
	LAST	P1476	en:"Complete solution of the eight-puzzle and the benefit of node ordering in IDA"
	LAST	P2093	"Alexander Reinefeld"	P1545	"1"

@larsgw
Copy link
Member

larsgw commented Sep 19, 2024

Linking it to the conference name is a bit more difficult as there are generally no identifiers for that, and I am not planning to link them based on the labels. I could implement the "unknown value" + "object named as" trick if you want though, but I'm still not sure if editors agree that's a good idea.

@dpriskorn
Copy link
Author

dpriskorn commented Sep 19, 2024

Linking it to the conference name is a bit more difficult as there are generally no identifiers for that, and I am not planning to link them based on the labels. I could implement the "unknown value" + "object named as" trick if you want though, but I'm still not sure if editors agree that's a good idea.

That trick sounds better to me than discarding the data. But, I would prefer to try to infer from title -> fail with a good error message that tell the user to import the book first, so the paper and book can be linked.

In this case searching using wbsearchentities returns 0 results. It's only a 204 ms request and it helps the user immensely.

You could generate the api request for the book for the user also and include it in the error message :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants