Support discontinuous page ranges
Jeffreys, J. G. (1859). "Further gleanings in British Conchology." Annals and Magazine of Natural History (3)3: 30-43, 106-120. It could, of course, be treated as though it were two articles, but this gets cumbersome when an article has numerous continuations.
@jim_croft Donat Agosti et al. have done some work on recognising taxonomic descriptions, see also http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20463. I suspect, given page numbers (e.g., from IPNI in the case of plants) we could do a pretty good job of automatically extracting the descriptions from BHL
I can no see any way to mark and tag taxon profiles other than manually. But hey, that's the job - we are indexing them all and it should be about as much work again to go back and do the manual markup thing.
'Hyperclusion'. You heard it here first. And I offer it, CC0, to BioStor... :)
@jim_croft The wiki example was manually constructed, but this could be done automatically at page level. If we knew what page the description occurred on, that page could be automatically transcluded into the taxon page. In the Rana bolyii example I transcluded just the description. These are harder to find automatically, so maybe a first pass would be to transclude pages, then have users refine that if they wished.
@emeyke A parent field is one option (and this model could be extended to include articles [parent=journal] and book chapters[parent=book], although at present those links are made via identifiers [articles with same issn belong in same journal]).
However, for articles that are continuations there isn't necessarily a parent, it's more a linear chain of articles (i.e., it's a list not a tree).
Evgeniy Meyke commented
How about having a "Parent" field in the "Article" object so that you can link parts in simple way while maintaining your linking advantage? This would also allow you to easily filter out the ones that have Oarent field not null and get the list of "master" articles.
Can't argue too much about the conceptualization. You're the guy doing all the work. :)
Yes, that is more or less it. A defined/tagged fragment that can be transcluded (I hate having to learn new words on a Sunday night) in other documents covering the same (or related?) taxon concepts.
In your wiki example, I take it the 'transclusion' example was done manually as a demonstration? What I am hoping for is an environment with appropriate internal markup/tagging so that it can all happen programmatically. Not convinced that Wiki is the answer to managing this information, but it is certainly one of the places it will be needed and where it will be able to be used.
@jim_croft Partly I'm trying to make my life simpler, which means on occasion not trying to replicate how biologists may treat an article, but handling the article in a way that makes it easier for me. This means treating continuations as separate articles, each individually addressable (i.e., they each have their own URL). To me this makes sense as people can (and do) cite these separately, plus there may be reasons to be able to refer to them separately (e.g., date of publication will vary across the articles). I guess there are many ways to aggregate things (pages into articles, articles into journals, articles into a series of articles, etc.), and ideally each "unit" will be addressable. Hence, one could imagine creating an aggregation of the four articles in the example that started this thread (or, indeed, the two article aggregation with the title "Further gleanings in British Conchology").
Regarding extracting bits from within a reference, this is what I'm exploring with the wiki. For example, http://biostor.org/wiki/Rana_boylii contains a page fragment from http://biostor.org/wiki/Page:Proceedingsofaca07acad.djvu/84, which contains the original description of this frog. I guess this is what you're after?
Given the effort involved, it's likely that the wiki will be the best place to create and explore links between names, publications, and fragments of publications, such as descriptions, figures, maps.
My previous interpretation of these things is that they are not separate articles, but a single article with chunks that are not contiguous; is not uncommon to have notes, maps, figures, plates, etc. in a different part of the book/journal to the main article. This is of course quite different to a 'work' that is published in bits in different 'parts' (or even volumes) of the same journal; however this is often expressed quite explicitly in the title as 'part one', 'part two' or with roman numerals, a descriptive subtitle, etc. In this case the fact that the title is different tells you it is a different article.
On the surface, it looks as though that when you have addressed this issue you are well on the way to being able to specify and extract pages, figures, plates and maps from *within* a reference and that being able to extract a protologue or species profile with all its bits might be within grasp. True?
I guess my preference is to treat these as separate articles as it keeps the data model simpler (pagination for each reference is bounded by a start and end page), plus it enables people to cite individual parts if they wish. One approach would be to add a field linking the parts together (i.e., "is continuation of") so users could discover the links between the parts.
The example of Jeffreys, J. G. (1859). "Further gleanings in British Conchology." Annals and Magazine of Natural History (3)3: 30-43, 106-120 is interesting. I've added both parts to BioStor (http://biostor.org/reference/50267 and http://biostor.org/reference/50268). The first part (see http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/22070184 ) states "[Continued from vol. ii. p. 133.] ", which corresponds to http://biostor.org/reference/50269, which itself is a continuation of http://biostor.org/reference/50270. These four articles span three volumes -1,2, and 3 of series 3, and have two titles "Gleanings in British Chonchology" and "Further Gleanings in British Chonchology".
My own view is that trying to replicate some of the more intricate practices of citation in the taxonomic literature is probably a mistake. That said, it might be worthwhile deveoping parses to handle strings like "Jeffreys, J. G. (1859). "Further gleanings in British Conchology." Annals and Magazine of Natural History (3)3: 30-43, 106-120" and return the set of articles this corresponds to.