[uf-discuss] Re: X2C (Was Citation Microformat: Lazyweb...)
michael.mccracken at gmail.com
Fri Oct 6 12:30:48 PDT 2006
On 10/6/06, Michael McCracken <michael.mccracken at gmail.com> wrote:
> Brian, I'm attempting to try your X2C service but I'm getting errors
> and I'm having trouble pinning down what's going wrong.
> I'll take a look at the XSL but if I could put a request in for some
> user-visible error reporting that'd help things along.
So after I realized that it probably wanted valid XHTML to work with,
I managed to get a first bibtex entry out of X2C. I used this URL:
Which is marked up (incompletely) using a custom version of drupal's
>From that publication I get the following BibTeX:
TITLE="What's Working in HPC",
ABSTRACT=" Productivity in High Performance Computing ("HPC") systems can be
difficult to define, complicated by the sometimes competing
motivations of the people involved. For example, scheduling policies
at many centers are geared toward maximizing system utilization, while
users are motivated only by the desire to produce scientific
results. Neither of these motivating forces directly relates to the
common metric widely put forward as a measure of merit in HPC: high
code performance as measured in floating-point operations per second
This paper evaluates some factors contributing to the net gain or loss of
productivity for users on today's HPC
systems, and explores whether or not those factors are accurately
being accounted for in the way systems are evaluated and scheduled.
Usage patterns are identified through job logs and ticket analysis,
and further explained with
user surveys and interviews.
This paper reveals insight into productivity on current HPC systems,
where users' time is spent,
what bottlenecks are experienced,
and the resulting implications for HPC system design, use and administration.
This isn't valid bibtex for three reasons:
It's missing a key, a type, and the double-quotes around "HPC" are a
In bibtex you can enclose the fields in braces or double-quotes. I
prefer braces, because then you don't need to worry about
latex-escaping double-quotes inside the fields. (And many consumers of
bibtex will still choke on even properly escaped double-quotes).
For the missing elements, we should decide whether or not it's a
SHOULD (so X2C needs a reasonable default) or a MUST, where I need to
find a way to get that data in there.
I think key/id and type (not format) are both SHOULDs.
Finally, the authors should be accumulated. Currently it's only taking
the first author.
More information about the microformats-discuss