Mendeley has added a feature which makes it easier to use Mendeley with repositories such as BioStor and BHL.

Quick note to express the frustration I experience sometimes when dealing with taxonomic literature.

One of the things I'm enjoying about the Australian Faunal Directory on CouchDB is the chance to play with some ideas without worrying about breaking lots of code or, indeed, upsetting any users ('cos, let's face it, there aren't any). As a result, I can start to play with ideas that may one day find their way into other projects. One of these ideas is to use quantum treemaps to display an author's publications.

Some quick notes on OCR. Revisiting my DjVu viewer experiments it really struck me how "dirty" the OCR text is. It's readable, but if we were to display the OCR text rather than the images, it would be a little offputting.

One year ago I released BioStor, which scratched my itch regarding finding articles in the Biodiversity Heritage Library. This anniversary seems to be a good time to think about where next with this project, but also to ask whether it's been successful.

This week saw the release of two tools from the Biodiversity Heritage Library, CiteBank and the BHL-Europe portal. Both have actually been quietly around for a while, but were only publicly announced last week. In developing a new tool there are several questions to ask. Does something already exist that meets my needs? If it doesn't exist, can I build it using an existing framework, or do I need to start from scratch?

Continuing my hobby horse of linking taxonomic databases to digitised literature, I've been working for the last couple of weeks on linking names in the Australian Faunal Directory (AFD) to articles in the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL). AFD is a list of all animals known to occur in Australia, and it provides much of the data for the recently released Atlas of Living Australia.

David ("Paddy") Patterson, Jerry Cooper, Paul Kirk, Rich Pyle, and David Remsen have published an article in TREE entitled "Names are key to the big new biology" (doi:10.1016/j.tree.2010.09.004). The abstract states: Do we need names? Reading this (full disclosure, I was a reviewer) I can't wondering whether the assumption that names are key really needs to be challenged.

One of my hobby horses is the disservice taxonomic databases do their users by not linking to original scientific literature.

The bulk of the Biodiversity Heritage Library's content is available as DjVu files, which package together scanned page images and OCR text. Websites such as BHL or my own BioStor display page images, but there's no way to interact with the page content itself.