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

Re: Call for Linked Research

From: Hugh Glaser <hugh@glasers.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:56:25 +0100
Cc: public-lod@w3.org, SW-forum <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <9EC00089-C36D-4407-A137-FA86C8031763@glasers.org>
To: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
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

On 29 Jul 2014, at 10:02, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> wrote:

> On 2014-07-29 09:43, Andrea Perego wrote:
>> You might consider including in your call an explicit reference to
>> nanopublications [1] as an example of how to address point (5).
>> 
>> About source code, there's a project, SciForge [1], working on the
>> idea of making scientific software citable.
>> 
>> My two cents...
> 
>> [1]http://nanopub.org/
>> [2]http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/en/research/organizational-units/technology-transfer-centres/cegit/projects/sciforge/
> 
> Thanks for the heads-up, Andrea. The article on my site has an open comment system, which is intended to have an open discussion or have suggestions for the others (like the ones you've proposed). Not that I'm opposed to continuing the discussion here, but you are welcome to contribute there so that the next person that comes along can get a hold of that information.
> 
> It wasn't my intention to refer to all workshops that play nicely towards open science, vocabularies to use, exact tooling to use, or all efforts out there e.g., nanopublications.
> 
> You have just cited two hyperlinks in that email. Those URLs are accessible by anything in existence that can make an HTTP GET request. Pardon my ignorance, but, why do we need off-band software when we have something that works remarkably well?
> 
> -Sarven
> http://csarven.ca/#i
> 

-- 
Hugh Glaser
   20 Portchester Rise
   Eastleigh
   SO50 4QS
Mobile: +44 75 9533 4155, Home: +44 23 8061 5652
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2014 09:56:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:49:17 UTC