|Open||None||T165321 New param/pattern in service for requesting a single citation based on a unique identifier|
|Open||None||T115248 Strings of digits currently only search for PMIDs; Add multiple results and include OCLC and PMC in the search|
- Mentioned In
- T165321: New param/pattern in service for requesting a single citation based on a unique identifier
T114515: Add ability to request base types in citoid, and offer use of both in extension for backwards compatibility until all templateData has been updated, and undo its use in extension, including use of templateData
T154905: Expand pubmed regex to include digits starting from 1 in citoid
- Mentioned Here
- T114515: Add ability to request base types in citoid, and offer use of both in extension for backwards compatibility until all templateData has been updated, and undo its use in extension, including use of templateData
I think you provided a good example of why this currently wouldn't work! We have absolutely no way to tell the difference between a pmid and an oclc number. So this really wouldn't work out. I could see maybe in the future expanding the api so you could tell the system which you were asking for, but that would make the corresponding ui too complicated, so I don't think we'd use that in the extension anyway...
Now that we have access to worldcat api, this is definitely possible.
We could just request both the OCLC and the pubmed and return both results. The extension can handle that and multiple results are allowed by the service as well... we just have never done that yet. Seems like a good idea, Y/N?
How would this work in practice though? We are pasting just strings without the identifiers' acronyms, would we get a dropdown that allows a choice, or? PMC=3359843 and PMID=3359843 are different articles. Should we allow specifying the identifier?
A couple of screenshots:
|At the top||Scrolled down a bit|
Yeah, maybe a thin line to separate items would help? Also maybe we should limit each preview item's height to four or five lines and fade out with "…" so you can see there's a second/third result?