JATS was originally designed, and is primarily used, to enable publishing of scholarly work, and to exchange information between authors, publishers, and archives.
The needs of those who desire to do large-scale reuse of scholarly content are important!
History repeating itself?
The PDB example - emphasis on getting content in caused reuse problems later on, and corpus correction was costly.
Time to reconsider JATS-related procedures?
Other databases?
We recommend that the concept of use cases, and that collaboration with suitable use case partners, be adopted and incorporated into the workflows for development of the JATS standard, documentation, and various tools. Possible use cases to start with are:
"an open source, stand-alone software system capable of recognizing and normalizing species name mentions with speed and accuracy, and can therefore be integrated into a range of bioinformatics and text-mining applications."
"the set of citing sentences for a given article [..] can be used as a surrogate for the actual article in a variety of scenarios. It contains information that was deemed by peers to be important. "
This image of Xanthichthys ringens is sourced from an open-access scholarly article licensed for re-use. How can we make that reusability explicit when citing this source in Wikipedia articles?[1] For further details, see this Signpost op-ed.
