W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2014

Re: Call for Linked Research

From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 18:36:13 +0200
Message-ID: <CAK4ZFVFrsijSA1hy5LfpXM_Z+Oqfj+oo8rLoKHMN1tGuefnAyA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
Cc: Linking Open Data <public-lod@w3.org>, SW-forum <semantic-web@w3.org>
Hi Sarven

On point 2 : Publish your progress and work following the Linked Data
design principles. Create a URI for everything that is of some value to you
and may be to others e.g., hypothesis, workflow steps, variables,
provenance, results etc.

For such public to be really interoperable, all this should rely on shared
vocabularies. This important point is not obvious in your call. Which
vocabularies would you suggest?
Semanticscience Integrated Ontology is a god candidate for this
http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/details/vocabulary_sio.html
https://code.google.com/p/semanticscience/wiki/SIO


2014-07-28 18:22 GMT+02:00 Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>:

> On 2014-07-28 16:16, Paul Houle wrote:
>
>> I'd add to all of this publishing the raw data,  source code,  and
>> industrialized procedures so that results are truly reproducible,  as
>> few results in science actually are.
>>
>
>  On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 2. Publish your progress and work following the Linked Data design
>>> principles. Create a URI for everything that is of some value to you and
>>> may
>>> be to others e.g., hypothesis, workflow steps, variables, provenance,
>>> results etc.
>>>
>>
>
> Agreed, but I think point 2 covers that. It was not my intention to give a
> complete coverage of the scientific method. Covering reproducibility is a
> given. It also goes for making sure that all of the publicly funded
> research material is accessible and free. And, one should not have to go
> through a 3rd party service ("gatekeepers") to get a hold of someone else's
> knowledge.
>
> If we can not have open and free access to someone else's research, or
> reproduce (within reasonable amount of effort), IMO, that "research" *does
> not exist*. That may not be a popular opinion out there, but I fail to see
> how such inaccessible work would qualify as scientific. Having to create an
> account on a publisher's site, and pay for the material, is not what I
> consider accessible. Whether that payment is withdrawn directly from my
> account or indirectly from the institution I'm with (which still comes out
> of my pocket).
>
> Any way, this is discussed in great detail elsewhere by a lot of smart
> folks. Like I said, I had different intentions in my proposal i.e., DIY.
> Control your own publishing on the Web. If you must, hand out a copy e.g.,
> PDF, to fulfil your h-index high-score.
>
> -Sarven
> http://csarven.ca/#i
>
>


-- 

*Bernard Vatant*
Vocabularies & Data Engineering
Tel :  + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59
Skype : bernard.vatant
http://google.com/+BernardVatant
--------------------------------------------------------
*Mondeca*
35 boulevard de Strasbourg 75010 Paris
www.mondeca.com
Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews>
----------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 28 July 2014 16:37:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:52 UTC