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

2. New
Formats:Hypertext
Engelbart,
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. New
Formats:
Hypertext
Three
parts:
1.Modular
content
components
2.Meaningful
links
3.Claim
-­‐>
evidence
networks
3

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. So...
7

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. 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. 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,
handhelds
1.What
happened?
2.What
stuck?
8

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Summary:
some
factors
driving
support
13

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

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. 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. 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. 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. A
small
history
of
innova3on
in
science
publishing
14

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
Commons
A@ribu3on
and
Blogs,
downloads,
Impact
factor Citeseer H-­‐Index
credit ‘Alt-­‐metrics’
14

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
Commons
A@ribu3on
and
Blogs,
downloads,
Impact
factor Citeseer H-­‐Index
credit ‘Alt-­‐metrics’
14

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
Commons
A@ribu3on
and
Blogs,
downloads,
Impact
factor Citeseer H-­‐Index
credit ‘Alt-­‐metrics’
14

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
Commons
A@ribu3on
and
Blogs,
downloads,
Impact
factor Citeseer H-­‐Index
credit ‘Alt-­‐metrics’
14

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
Commons
A@ribu3on
and
Blogs,
downloads,
Impact
factor Citeseer H-­‐Index
credit ‘Alt-­‐metrics’
14

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
Commons
A@ribu3on
and
Blogs,
downloads,
Impact
factor Citeseer H-­‐Index
credit ‘Alt-­‐metrics’
14