Introduction: The Past - Future of Research Communications

The Future of Research Communica3ons: The Past Anita de Waard Elsevier Labs/UUtrecht h@p://elsatglabs.com/labs/anita

New Formats:HypertextEngelbart, 1968, First demo... -‐ h9p://sloan.stanford.edu/MouseSite/1968Demo.html#player2 ‘If, in your oﬃce, you, as an intellectual worker, were supplied with a computer display backed up with a computer that was alive for you all day, and was instantly responsible, -‐ responsive, hehe -‐ how much value would you derive from that?’...and ﬁrst demonstraOon of hypertext: -‐ h9p://sloan.stanford.edu/MouseSite/1968Demo.html#player11 ‘Content represents concepts, but there is also a rela+on between the content of concepts, their structure, and the structure of other domains of human thought, that is too complex to inves+gate in linear text’ 2

New Formats: HypertextThree parts: 1.Modular content components 2.Meaningful links 3.Claim -‐> evidence networks 3

Hypertext, 1: Modular Content Components• Kircz, ’98: “a much more radical approach would be to [break] apart the linear text into independent modules, each with its own unique cogniOve character.”• Harmsze, ‘00: modular model for physics papers >• XPharm, 2001: modular text book in pharmacology >>• ABCDE Format: modular computer science proceedings paper >>> • LiquidPub, 2010: Structured Knowledge Objects>>>>• HCLS Rhet Doc: Medium-‐grained structure: core narraOve components ^• DoCo: core Document Components 4

Hypertext, 1: Modular Content Components• Kircz, ’98: “a much more radical approach would be to [break] apart the Annotation linear text into independent modules, each with its own unique cogniOve character.”• Harmsze, ‘00: modular model for physics papers >• XPharm, 2001: modular text book in pharmacology >>• ABCDE Format: modular computer science proceedings paper >>> • LiquidPub, 2010: Structured Knowledge Objects>>>>• HCLS Rhet Doc: Medium-‐grained structure: core narraOve components ^• DoCo: core Document Components 4

Hypertext, 2: Meaningful links• Harmsze (1999): Ontology of content relaOonships>• IBIS, ClaiMaker: Linking argumentaOonal components >>• Diligent argumentaOon ontology V• RDF does allow for these funcOonaliOes, but most ontologies are sOll based on SKOS?! 5

Hypertext, 3: Claim-‐Evidence Networks • Special case of modules of content and meaningful relaOonships • Buckingham Shum, 1999:>• SWAN: Clark, Ciccarese et al., 2005: >• HypER: 6 groups developing prototypes on this basis (Harvard, Oxford, DERI, KMI, Utrecht, SIOC) • NanopublicaOons: research data + bit of knowledge (see also: the Present and the Future) 6

So... 7

So...• The basic idea has been around since the 60ies• The standards, technologies and tools have been around since the nineOes• But (almost) no content has been created this way -‐ why? 7

So...• The basic idea has been around since the 60ies• The standards, technologies and tools have been around since the nineOes• But (almost) no content has been created this way -‐ why? • Let’s look at the history of the other breakout topics ﬁrst: – Tools and standards – Business models – Research data – A9ribuOon and credit 7

Four periods:• 1960s -‐ 1980s, Pre-‐Web: Online databases, main concepts of hypertext• 1990-‐2000, Web: Preprint servers, web ubiquitous; ‘era of standards’• 2000 -‐ 2005, SemanOc Web: Seperate content from presentaOon; Open Access• 2005 -‐ 2011: Social Web: Crowdsourcing, cloud compuOng, handhelds1.What happened? 2.What stuck? 8

Tools and standards• 1960s -‐ 1980s: (La)TeX, SGML, Word, WP• 1990 -‐ 2000: XML, SMIL, XLink, SVG, CSS, PDF, MathML• 2000 -‐ 2005: RDF; Annotea, Haystack, SemanOc Desktop• 2005 -‐ 2011: LOD, Provenance; Twi9er, Skype, Google Docs, Github; Utopia... 9

Tools and standards• 1960s -‐ 1980s: (La)TeX, SGML, Word, WP• 1990 -‐ 2000: XML, SMIL, XLink, SVG, CSS, PDF, MathML• 2000 -‐ 2005: RDF; Annotea, Haystack, SemanOc Desktop• 2005 -‐ 2011: LOD, Provenance; Twi9er, Skype, Google Docs, Github; Utopia...What stuck, and why? Some thoughts:• LaTeX, MathML: Fierce community of adopters who like UI• Word, PDF: Commercial interest to maintain front end • XML, html: Shallower learning curve than SGML• RDF over XLink: ‘SemanOc’ message: world was ready? • Social media: Simple tools to express basic human urge? 9

Business models• 1960s -‐ 1980s: Publishing, including distribuOon, is in hands of publishers and socie+es, selling to libraries. DIALOG computers allow access to abstracts. • 1990-‐2000: ArXiV, preprint servers: content direct to end-‐users.• 2000 -‐ 2005: BioMed Central, Faculty 1000, PLoS, Crea+ve Commons -‐ development of ‘author-‐pays’, ‘peer-‐review arer’• 2005 -‐ 2011: Content share/creaOon is ubiquitous. Open Data movement. 10

Business models• 1960s -‐ 1980s: Publishing, including distribuOon, is in hands of publishers and socie+es, selling to libraries. DIALOG computers allow access to abstracts. • 1990-‐2000: ArXiV, preprint servers: content direct to end-‐users.• 2000 -‐ 2005: BioMed Central, Faculty 1000, PLoS, Crea+ve Commons -‐ development of ‘author-‐pays’, ‘peer-‐review arer’• 2005 -‐ 2011: Content share/creaOon is ubiquitous. Open Data movement. What stuck, and why? • Commercial business model engrained in budgeOng etc.• SocieOes and ‘author-‐pays’ models also become publishers• IndignaOon drives Open Access -‐ but also have a day job 10

Research Data• 1960s -‐ 1980s: Locally stored, except for CERN/DARPA• 1990-‐2000: Collaboratories: CAST, UARC, Sloan DSS, DOE; Digital repositories: ADS, DBLP, JSTOR, Citeseer• 2000 -‐ 2005: Workﬂows & Grids: Taverna, MyGrid, GriPhyn• 2005 -‐ 2011: MyExperiment, Vistrails, Dataverse, Datacite, ‘The Data Journal’ 11

Research Data• 1960s -‐ 1980s: Locally stored, except for CERN/DARPA• 1990-‐2000: Collaboratories: CAST, UARC, Sloan DSS, DOE; Digital repositories: ADS, DBLP, JSTOR, Citeseer• 2000 -‐ 2005: Workflows & Grids: Taverna, MyGrid, GriPhyn• 2005 -‐ 2011: MyExperiment, Vistrails, Dataverse, Datacite, ‘The Data Journal’What stuck, and why?• Local data stores are centrally (and long-‐term) funded • ADS/DBLP/JSTOR fulfill a need for domain-‐specific access, funded by ‘invisible’ sources• Workflow tools not yet ubiquitous -‐ need not great enough? 11

A@ribu3on and credit• 1960s -‐ 1980s: Impact factor• 1990-‐2000: Citeseer, DBLP• 2000 -‐ 2005: H-‐Index, Google Scholar• 2005 -‐ 2011: Blogs, downloads, ‘Alt-‐metrics’ 12

A@ribu3on and credit• 1960s -‐ 1980s: Impact factor• 1990-‐2000: Citeseer, DBLP• 2000 -‐ 2005: H-‐Index, Google Scholar• 2005 -‐ 2011: Blogs, downloads, ‘Alt-‐metrics’What stuck, and why?• Impact factor: direct connecOon to author’s fame• Google Scholar: easy UI, ‘Open’ image• All other metric measurements are not yet engrained in assessment tradiOon 12

Summary: some factors driving support 13

Summary: some factors driving support• Commercial support: – Commercial publishing: great ﬁnancial interest – Word, PDF: investment to maintain format 13

Summary: some factors driving support• Commercial support: – Commercial publishing: great ﬁnancial interest – Word, PDF: investment to maintain format• Community support: – LaTeX: Fierce community of adopters – Open Access: Social indignaOon 13

Summary: some factors driving support• Commercial support: – Commercial publishing: great ﬁnancial interest – Word, PDF: investment to maintain format• Community support: – LaTeX: Fierce community of adopters – Open Access: Social indignaOon• Ease of use, domain relevance -‐ user friendliness: – Google Scholar: model known, perceived objecOvity – DBLP, ADS, JSToR: ‘invisible’ funding, domain-‐speciﬁcity 13

Summary: some factors driving support• Commercial support: – Commercial publishing: great ﬁnancial interest – Word, PDF: investment to maintain format• Community support: – LaTeX: Fierce community of adopters – Open Access: Social indignaOon• Ease of use, domain relevance -‐ user friendliness: – Google Scholar: model known, perceived objecOvity – DBLP, ADS, JSToR: ‘invisible’ funding, domain-‐speciﬁcity• Academic credit depends on it: – Impact factor – Grant proposals -‐ complex, not logical, but life depends on it... 13

Summary: some factors driving support• Commercial support: – Commercial publishing: great ﬁnancial interest – Word, PDF: investment to maintain format• Community support: Exercise: Which of – LaTeX: Fierce community of adopters these could apply – Open Access: Social indignaOon to hypertext models? • Ease of use, domain relevance -‐ user friendliness: – Google Scholar: model known, perceived objecOvity – DBLP, ADS, JSToR: ‘invisible’ funding, domain-‐speciﬁcity• Academic credit depends on it: – Impact factor – Grant proposals -‐ complex, not logical, but life depends on it... 13

A small history of innova3on in science publishing 14

A small history of innova3on in science publishing 1960s -‐ 1980s: 1990-‐2000: 2000 -‐ 2005: 2005 -‐ 2011: Pre-‐Web Web Seman+c Web Social Web Memex, Augment, SWAN, LiquidPub, New Formats Modular papers XML for modular texts Xanadu; Hypertext Nanopublica3ons Locally stored Collaboratories: Workﬂows & Grids: MyExperiment,Research Data except for CERN/ CAST, UARC, Taverna, MyGrid, Dataverse, Datacite, DARPA Sloan DSS, DOE GriPhyn ‘The Data Journal’ RDF; Annotea, LOD, Provenance; Tools and XML, SMIL, XLink, LaTeX, SGML, html Haystack, Seman3c Twi@er, Skype, standards SVG, CSS Desktop Google Docs, Github BioMed Central, Publishers and ArXiV, preprint Business models Faculty 1000, PLoS, ODF, ? socie3es servers Crea3ve CommonsA@ribu3on and Blogs, downloads, Impact factor Citeseer H-‐Indexcredit ‘Alt-‐metrics’ 14

Introduction: The Past - Future of Research Communications

by Anita de Waard

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

2 Embeds 124

Statistics

Introduction: The Past - Future of Research Communications Presentation Transcript

http://www.scoop.it	123
http://www.linkedin.com	1