Timeline for Math reviews in "Zentralblatt für Mathematik und ihre Grenzgebiete"
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13 at 4:29 | history | edited | Alexandre Eremenko | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 39 characters in body
|
| Mar 4, 2019 at 3:19 | comment | added | Alexandre Eremenko | I suppose everyone agrees that math papers are more important than their reviews. Can you give me a single math journal of pre-TeX era, which has been re-typed in TeX? All we have on Internet are scanneed copies, some are better, others worse. Even for books re-typing is extremelly rare. | |
| Mar 4, 2019 at 2:38 | history | edited | Alexandre Eremenko | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Mar 4, 2019 at 0:34 | comment | added | student | @ darij grinberg: Due to the low quality of the scanned file, OCR will produce lots of mistakes (and this brings trouble if you were using google translation). BTW, it will not cost too much if ZBMATH could at least make the "reviewer's name" searchable. | |
| Mar 3, 2019 at 18:21 | comment | added | alephzero | @KConrad MathSciNet is subscription only, and the cost of a subscription is more than \$10,000. Aside from that one service, AMS has around 30,000 members with annual typical membership fees over $100. An organization with a multi-million-dollar annual budget can afford to "hire an army" if it feels so inclined. The European Mathematical Society (one of the sponsors of ZBMATH) has one-tenth as many members as AMS, and much smaller subscription fees. | |
| Mar 3, 2019 at 18:15 | comment | added | darij grinberg | "non-searchable" is a solved problem, though it is annoyingly hard to apply in practice (there are OCR libraries around, but no "one-click" solutions to my knowledge). | |
| Mar 3, 2019 at 14:43 | comment | added | KConrad | @Alexandre Eremenko it is understandable that ZB simply scanned old stuff, but it is not inconceivable to retype old reviews in LaTeX. For example, MathSciNet has all of its past reviews back to 1940 in TeX format. I don't know if they hired "great armies" to accomplish that task, but obviously it was a substantial investment of time and resources. And ZB is less than 10 years older than Math Reviews. Maybe Ed Dunne will see this post and comment on the different approaches taken by MR and ZB to making old reviews electronically accessible (at least for those with subscriptions). | |
| Mar 3, 2019 at 14:34 | comment | added | Alexandre Eremenko | @student: the ZblMath database is indeed a very useful product. And it was useful also 20 years ago when it existed on paper only, when the only "search feature" was a paper index. Converting old mathematical literature into searchable files will not justify expenses. | |
| Mar 3, 2019 at 14:28 | comment | added | student | @ Alexandre Eremenko: If the database is sold as "a product", then they could surely improve its quality, say, using more clear files. Some reviews are written by true experts and hence useful to other math workers. Simply uploading non-searchable scanned files greatly reduced its function. | |
| Mar 3, 2019 at 14:17 | history | answered | Alexandre Eremenko | CC BY-SA 4.0 |