The	  Future	  of	  Research	  Communica3ons:	  The	  Past          Anita	  de	  Waard	         Elsevier	  Labs/UUtrecht  ...
New	  Formats:HypertextEngelbart,	  1968,	  First	  demo...   -­‐ h9p://sloan.stanford.edu/MouseSite/1968Demo.html#player2...
New	  Formats:	  HypertextThree	  parts:	    1.Modular	  content	  components  2.Meaningful	  links  3.Claim	  -­‐>	  evid...
Hypertext,	  1:	  Modular	  Content	  Components• Kircz,	  ’98:	  “a	  much	  more	  radical	    approach	  would	  be	  t...
Hypertext,	  1:	  Modular	  Content	  Components• Kircz,	  ’98:	  “a	  much	  more	  radical	    approach	  would	  be	  t...
Hypertext,	  1:	  Modular	  Content	  Components• Kircz,	  ’98:	  “a	  much	  more	  radical	    approach	  would	  be	  t...
Hypertext,	  1:	  Modular	  Content	  Components• Kircz,	  ’98:	  “a	  much	  more	  radical	    approach	  would	  be	  t...
Hypertext,	  1:	  Modular	  Content	  Components• Kircz,	  ’98:	  “a	  much	  more	  radical	    approach	  would	  be	  t...
Hypertext,	  1:	  Modular	  Content	  Components• Kircz,	  ’98:	  “a	  much	  more	  radical	    approach	  would	  be	  t...
Hypertext,	  1:	  Modular	  Content	  Components• Kircz,	  ’98:	  “a	  much	  more	  radical	    approach	  would	  be	  t...
Hypertext,	  2:	  Meaningful	  links• Harmsze	  (1999):	  Ontology	  of	    content	  relaOonships>• IBIS,	  ClaiMaker:	  ...
Hypertext,	  2:	  Meaningful	  links• Harmsze	  (1999):	  Ontology	  of	    content	  relaOonships>• IBIS,	  ClaiMaker:	  ...
Hypertext,	  2:	  Meaningful	  links• Harmsze	  (1999):	  Ontology	  of	    content	  relaOonships>• IBIS,	  ClaiMaker:	  ...
Hypertext,	  2:	  Meaningful	  links• Harmsze	  (1999):	  Ontology	  of	    content	  relaOonships>• IBIS,	  ClaiMaker:	  ...
Hypertext,	  2:	  Meaningful	  links• Harmsze	  (1999):	  Ontology	  of	    content	  relaOonships>• IBIS,	  ClaiMaker:	  ...
Hypertext,	  3:	  Claim-­‐Evidence	  Networks	  • Special	  case	  of	  modules	  of	    content	  and	  meaningful	    re...
Hypertext,	  3:	  Claim-­‐Evidence	  Networks	  • Special	  case	  of	  modules	  of	    content	  and	  meaningful	    re...
Hypertext,	  3:	  Claim-­‐Evidence	  Networks	  • Special	  case	  of	  modules	  of	    content	  and	  meaningful	    re...
Hypertext,	  3:	  Claim-­‐Evidence	  Networks	  • Special	  case	  of	  modules	  of	    content	  and	  meaningful	    re...
Hypertext,	  3:	  Claim-­‐Evidence	  Networks	  • Special	  case	  of	  modules	  of	    content	  and	  meaningful	    re...
So...        7
So...• The	  basic	  idea	  has	  been	  around	  since	  the	  60ies• The	  standards,	  technologies	  and	  tools	  hav...
So...• The	  basic	  idea	  has	  been	  around	  since	  the	  60ies• The	  standards,	  technologies	  and	  tools	  hav...
Four	  periods:• 1960s	  -­‐	  1980s,	  Pre-­‐Web:	  Online	  databases,	  main	    concepts	  of	  hypertext• 1990-­‐2000...
Tools	  and	  standards• 1960s	  -­‐	  1980s:	  (La)TeX,	  SGML,	  Word,	  WP• 1990	  -­‐	  2000:	  XML,	  SMIL,	  XLink,	...
Tools	  and	  standards• 1960s	  -­‐	  1980s:	  (La)TeX,	  SGML,	  Word,	  WP• 1990	  -­‐	  2000:	  XML,	  SMIL,	  XLink,	...
Business	  models• 1960s	  -­‐	  1980s:	  Publishing,	  including	  distribuOon,	  is	  in	  hands	  of	    publishers	  a...
Business	  models• 1960s	  -­‐	  1980s:	  Publishing,	  including	  distribuOon,	  is	  in	  hands	  of	    publishers	  a...
Research	  Data• 1960s	  -­‐	  1980s:	  Locally	  stored,	  except	  for	  CERN/DARPA• 1990-­‐2000:	  Collaboratories:	  C...
Research	  Data• 1960s	  -­‐	  1980s:	  Locally	  stored,	  except	  for	  CERN/DARPA• 1990-­‐2000:	  Collaboratories:	  C...
A@ribu3on	  and	  credit• 1960s	  -­‐	  1980s:	  Impact	  factor• 1990-­‐2000:	  Citeseer,	  DBLP• 2000	  -­‐	  2005:	  H-...
A@ribu3on	  and	  credit• 1960s	  -­‐	  1980s:	  Impact	  factor• 1990-­‐2000:	  Citeseer,	  DBLP• 2000	  -­‐	  2005:	  H-...
Summary:	  some	  factors	  driving	  support                                              13
Summary:	  some	  factors	  driving	  support• Commercial	  support:  – Commercial	  publishing:	  great	  financial	  inte...
Summary:	  some	  factors	  driving	  support• Commercial	  support:  – Commercial	  publishing:	  great	  financial	  inte...
Summary:	  some	  factors	  driving	  support• Commercial	  support:  – Commercial	  publishing:	  great	  financial	  inte...
Summary:	  some	  factors	  driving	  support• Commercial	  support:  – Commercial	  publishing:	  great	  financial	  inte...
Summary:	  some	  factors	  driving	  support• Commercial	  support:  – Commercial	  publishing:	  great	  financial	  inte...
A	  small	  history	  of	  innova3on	  in	  science	  publishing                                                          ...
A	  small	  history	  of	  innova3on	  in	  science	  publishing                       1960s	  -­‐	  1980s:	     1990-­‐20...
A	  small	  history	  of	  innova3on	  in	  science	  publishing                       1960s	  -­‐	  1980s:	     1990-­‐20...
A	  small	  history	  of	  innova3on	  in	  science	  publishing                       1960s	  -­‐	  1980s:	     1990-­‐20...
A	  small	  history	  of	  innova3on	  in	  science	  publishing                       1960s	  -­‐	  1980s:	     1990-­‐20...
A	  small	  history	  of	  innova3on	  in	  science	  publishing                       1960s	  -­‐	  1980s:	     1990-­‐20...
A	  small	  history	  of	  innova3on	  in	  science	  publishing                       1960s	  -­‐	  1980s:	     1990-­‐20...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Introduction: The Past - Future of Research Communications

876
-1

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
876
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Introduction: The Past - Future of Research Communications

  1. 1. The  Future  of  Research  Communica3ons:  The  Past Anita  de  Waard   Elsevier  Labs/UUtrecht h@p://elsatglabs.com/labs/anita  
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. New  Formats:  HypertextThree  parts:   1.Modular  content  components 2.Meaningful  links 3.Claim  -­‐>  evidence  networks 3
  4. 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
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. 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
  8. 8. 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
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10. 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
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. 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
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14. 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
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. 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
  17. 17. 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
  18. 18. 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
  19. 19. 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
  20. 20. 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
  21. 21. So... 7
  22. 22. 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
  23. 23. 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
  24. 24. 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
  25. 25. 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
  26. 26. 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
  27. 27. 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
  28. 28. 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
  29. 29. 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
  30. 30. 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
  31. 31. 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
  32. 32. 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
  33. 33. Summary:  some  factors  driving  support 13
  34. 34. Summary:  some  factors  driving  support• Commercial  support: – Commercial  publishing:  great  financial  interest – Word,  PDF:  investment  to  maintain  format 13
  35. 35. 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
  36. 36. 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
  37. 37. 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
  38. 38. 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
  39. 39. A  small  history  of  innova3on  in  science  publishing 14
  40. 40. 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
  41. 41. 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
  42. 42. 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
  43. 43. 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
  44. 44. 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
  45. 45. 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
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×