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

Re: Call for Linked Research

From: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 16:10:54 +0200
Message-ID: <53D7AB6E.3070708@csarven.ca>
To: public-lod@w3.org, SW-forum <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 2014-07-29 11:56, Hugh Glaser wrote:
> This is of course an excellent initiative.
> But I worry that it feels like people are talking about building stuff from scratch, or even lashing things together.
>
> Is it really the case that a typical research approach to what you are calling Linked Research doesn’t turn up theories and systems that can inform what we do?
>
> What I think you are talking about is what I think is commonly called e-Science.
> And there is a vast body of research on this topic.
> This initiative also impinges on the Open Archives/Access/Repositories movements, who are deeply concerned about how to capture all research outputs. See for example http://www.openarchives.org/ore/
>
> In e-Science I know of http://www.myexperiment.org, for example, which has been doing what I think is very related stuff for 6 or 7 years now, with significant funding, so is a mature system.
> And, of course, it is compatible with all our Linked Data goodness (I hope).
> Eg http://www.myexperiment.org/workflows/59
> We could do worse than look to see what they can do for us?
> And it appears that things can be skinned within the system: http://www.myexperiment.org/packs/106
>
> You are of course right, that it is a social problem, rather than a technical problem; this is why others’ experience in solving the social problem is of great interest.
>
> Maybe myExperiment or a related system would do what you want pretty much out of the box?
>
> Note that it goes even further than you are suggesting, as it has facilities to allow other researchers to actually run the code/workflows.
>
> It would take us years to get anywhere close to this sort of thing, unless we (LD people) could find serious resources.
> And I suspect we would end up with something that looks very similar!
>
> Very best
> Hugh

Thanks Hugh. Those are great examples and all the power to those people 
that's working hard at it. And you are right about the eScience bit. 
Just to clarify for anyone that's following this thread up:

It is not my intention to overlook or devalue existing or similar 
efforts to what I'm proposing. Nor is it my intention to "re-brand" 
anything. This is simply a Call to "DIY".

If conferences and publishers set the limitations to how we can join our 
combine knowledge and efforts, that's a clear sign to take the control 
back. They are not delivering on anything. We can do better.

You publish your work in however LD-friendly way you can. How much 
effort that goes into it is what you and others can get back. If you are 
content to not be able to discover interesting or relevant parts of 
others people's knowledge using the technologies and tools that's in 
front of you, there is nothing to debate about here.

Like I said, it is mind-boggling to think that the SW/LD research 
community is stuck on 1-star Linked Data. Is that sinking in yet?

-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i



Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2014 14:11:35 UTC

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