Re: CFP: First International Workshop on Reproducible Open Science (RepScience 2016)

On 2016-05-10 08:39, Herbert Van de Sompel wrote:
> Sarven,
>
> I am a fan of your linked research work. But I think it's a bit unjust
> to characterize D-Lib Magazine as fitting in the category "via paper and
> desktop/print centric tools and formats."

> D-Lib is, and has since its start in 1995, been an HTML-only journal
> that has served the Digital Library community very well. Just recently,
> I published a paper [1] in D-Lib in which the editors agreed  to allow
> me to diverge from their template in order to demonstrate the Robust
> Links [2] approach to combat reference rot in scholarly communication.

Thank you Herbert.

I'm aware of D-Lib, and it is fantastic that they gave room to exemplify 
your work to the greatest extent possible.

I was merely pointing at the workshop in particular because that's the 
primary point of engagement with the community. Is it encouraging the 
methods to share, reuse, reproduce that it stands behind? Oscar's second 
email certainly comes across that way (and that's a lot more reassuring 
then the first - at least to me).

There is much more to be said about encouraging and enabling the 
community (which was discussed a number of times in these mailing lists 
which I'm sure you well know). The point that tends to circle back 
around is that, if you ask a researcher to submit in X, they will most 
certainly submit in X. They will also pass that knowledge (the whole 
process) to their colleagues. So, if we for instance ask researchers 
coming into the field to embrace Webby submissions, we should be able to 
phase out desktop/print mentality especially in Web Science.

None of this is to suggest that people should be using tools that they 
don't want or can - needless to say, we need to be considerate about 
accessibility - but rather taking measures to have some interoperability 
between the research output, instead of sending it out to a black hole. 
It is neither to suggest that print is bad. The fundamental difference 
here is that, some of the formats and mediums that we ask the community 
to expose their work on the Web (of all places) tend to be severely 
limited right from the start. I think we can do better.

To take this workshop as an example, its submission requirements is no 
different than the calls from events that work with the "publishers" 
that are practically indifferent about any of this as long as it reduces 
their costs and maximises profits on all fronts. My point: the fact that 
D-Lib embraces the Web/HTML and friends is entirely hidden in this call. 
What remains is the expertise that (new) researchers compile during the 
process of submitting to this work - which tends to encourage the opposite.

Again, I'm merely suggesting that the voice of the community adapts to 
the state of the art. Technology is not the core problem. We always have 
social problems :)

Aside: it took "Linked Science" *4 years* to come around to this point.

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Apr/0291.html
https://twitter.com/LinkedScience/status/729978893160026113

What changed? Absolutely nothing on the technology end since everything 
was there right from the beginning - I've even demonstrated that at the 
time just to make the obvious point (via which is now known as 
https://dokie.li/ ). As far as I can see, the essential change appears 
to be on the social end.

> We had tried to achieve the same with a paper about reference rot in
> PLOS ONE [3] but our request was declined.

I was introduced to it by Shawn Jones at WWW2016: Persistent URIs Must 
Be Used To Be Persistent.

> While I agree that D-Lib does not represent an incarnation of your
> intended paradigm shift, I really don't think they are the enemy either.

Pardon me but I had no intention or need to mark anyone as an an enemy 
:) Focus is to encourage/enable researchers, organizers, institutions to 
shift while trying to keep it within reach by pinging the folks in Web 
Science, not all sciences.

This is especially why "Linked Research" is a proposed initiative to 
move towards. It is all open for discussion, and there are number of 
ways to engage. https://linkedresearch.org/ . Never asked or demanded 
must haves on the technologies outside of what's "Webby". Not "selling" 
a tool here. :)

> BTW: Maybe you could consider supporting Robust Links in your work. It's
> all about long-term access and integrity of the web-based scholarly
> record and hence should be of interest to you.

Thanks for bring this up. I think we already cover those use cases in 
dokieli, but added 
https://github.com/linkeddata/dokieli/issues/41#issuecomment-218147564 
to keep it in the radar in any case. I will take a closer look.

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

> Cheers
>
> Herbert
>
> [1] Van de Sompel, H., and Nelson, M.L. (2015) Reminiscing About 15
> Years of Interoperability Efforts. D-Lib Magazine, 21(11/12).
> DOI:10.1045/november2015-vandesompel,
> http://dx.doi.org/10.1045/november2015-vandesompel
>
> [2] Robust Links spec. http://robustlinks.mementoweb.org/spec/
>
>
> [3] Klein, M., Van de Sompel, H., Sanderson, R., Shankar, H.,
> Balakireva, L., Zhou K., and Tobin, R. (2014) Scholarly Context Not
> Found: One in Five Articles Suffers from Reference Rot. PLoS ONE, 9(12):
> e115253. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0115253 ;
> http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115253

Received on Tuesday, 10 May 2016 13:48:05 UTC