Introduction: The Past - Future of Research Communications
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Introduction: The Past - Future of Research Communications

on

  • 1,068 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,068
Views on SlideShare
944
Embed Views
124

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
10
Comments
0

2 Embeds 124

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

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Introduction: The Past - Future of Research Communications Introduction: The Past - Future of Research Communications Presentation Transcript

  • 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   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   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,  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,  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,  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,  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,  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,  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,  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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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