General presentation of the LiquidPub project
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

General presentation of the LiquidPub project

on

  • 1,843 views

Slides about LiquidPub project, presented at the 2nd Snow Workshop

Slides about LiquidPub project, presented at the 2nd Snow Workshop
http://wiki.liquidpub.org/mediawiki/index.php/Second_Workshop_on_Scientific_Knowledge_Creation%2C_Dissemination%2C_and_Evaluation

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,843
Views on SlideShare
1,841
Embed Views
2

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
15
Comments
0

1 Embed 2

http://www.slideshare.net 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

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
  • Nevertheless, formal peer review as we understand it today still dates back to at least the 18th century. The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London—founded in 1665, the same year as the Journaldes sc¸avans—was selective in its choice of manuscripts, but this was an informal process in the handsof the editor [137]. The Royal Society of Edinburgh’s Medical Essays and Observations, first publishedin 1731, was probably the first to introduce peer review as we would recognise it today, with submittedmanuscripts being distributed by the editor to appropriate specialists for assessment [137, 6];
  • Feedback: do not bury comments, make them visible to the authors Diversity: Jack Sandweiss, Yale. http://prl.aps.org/edannounce/PhysRevLett.102.190001
  • Liquid journals belong to a research line, in which we are trying to understand the challenges and opportunities the Web has made possible in terms of knowledge dissemination and evaluation.
  • To understand these possibilities and opportunities we need to look into the current dissemination model, and the reasons behind its structure. But what’s under the hood.. If we look at the current model we see that most of the features are there because of historical reasons.. ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
  • The Web has changed the way we get, share, produce and consume scientific content. Publishing is almost free. We have now new formats and new types of scientific content: We have blogs, papers, datasets.. provided by a variety of services on the Internet. In traditional and non traditional sources. The problem is now the attention [Huberman] ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
  • T The problem has become, for the readers. How do I get interesting an relevant content? For the authors, how do I make my work visible? The problem is now the attention [Huberman] ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
  • Original reasons for journal model now gone. Scarce resource now is attention Liquid journals: back to the roots – how to provide interesting content Separate the production/publication of content from the selection and grouping A journal is a view over scientific content avail on the web (free or not) The journal is defined as a query over the Web The editor specifies the type and properties of the content What behaviours are good for science? ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
  • Behaviors that are good for science, and in particular for the problem of information overhead Consider the new spectrum of “scientific contributions”, not just paper. And let users discover and get interesting problem. Focusing their attention to the things they care about. Advances in social Web, social tagging, New wasy of publishing, real time web, exploring real time dissemination +How we can bring interesting and relevant content to scientist? And therefore to understand and define the dimensions of what is scientific content How we can enable behaviours that are good for science? -enable early sharing -having people giving feedback How can the new publication mechanism benefit from the Web? What are the processes to follow How can we enable new possibilities?! We have defined an early model based on some initial research ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
  • I cannot go through all de details, so I thought it would be better to see an example, covering different aspects of the research Behaviors that are good for science, and in particular for the problem of information overhead +How we can bring interesting and relevant content to scientist? And therefore to understand and define the dimensions of what is scientific content How we can enable behaviours that are good for science? -enable early sharing -having people giving feedback How can the new publication mechanism benefit from the Web? What are the processes to follow How can we enable new possibilities?! We have defined an early model based on some initial research ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
  • Behaviors that are good for science, and in particular for the problem of information overhead +How we can bring interesting and relevant content to scientist? And therefore to understand and define the dimensions of what is scientific content How we can enable behaviours that are good for science? -enable early sharing -having people giving feedback How can the new publication mechanism benefit from the Web? What are the processes to follow How can we enable new possibilities?! We have defined an early model based on some initial research ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
  • Behaviors that are good for science, and in particular for the problem of information overhead +How we can bring interesting and relevant content to scientist? And therefore to understand and define the dimensions of what is scientific content How we can enable behaviours that are good for science? -enable early sharing -having people giving feedback How can the new publication mechanism benefit from the Web? What are the processes to follow How can we enable new possibilities?! We have defined an early model based on some initial research ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
  • Behaviors that are good for science, and in particular for the problem of information overhead +How we can bring interesting and relevant content to scientist? And therefore to understand and define the dimensions of what is scientific content How we can enable behaviours that are good for science? -enable early sharing -having people giving feedback How can the new publication mechanism benefit from the Web? What are the processes to follow How can we enable new possibilities?! We have defined an early model based on some initial research ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
  • As soon as the contribution becomes relevant to you.. ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
  • Some scenarios are more developed (specially the first one) than others. So, we would probably spend more time on them.
  • Fabio, Paco, Stefan want to do a LB togheter (e.g. “ Smart Web 2.0 applications” ) Each professor wants to obtain tailored and packaged teaching material for the class. They feel that by sharing their books/lecture notes can only get better each one of them has a different area of expertise they will put together their competences and materials, that already have or that are writing, to "compose" the LB. The three authors have many overlapping competences, although each of them has a field in which he is stronger. They all teach classes related to this topic, with different Teaching material they have includes slides, lecture notes, exercises, reference literature, etc.). --------------------------- It is unrealistic to assume that an author can just take somebody else's content and put it into their book without any change. Some, at least minimal, changes are always needed (references, terminology)
  • In this first scenario we have a small set of authors, not so much content, authors just started the LB, and we suppose they use whatever system they prefer to share content and collaborate: svn-like, launchpad, etc. Moreover we consider for simplicity, that the final output is just a pdf with a companion web site) 
  • have some guarantee that "their" content will be used appropriately. N o one want "to loose control" on their content (does everybody need to agree on all editions that anybody publishes?). If Stefan changes Paco content (given that Stefan is allowed to do that) to adapt that to his class, what if Paco does not like that content and does not approve that change?
  • Let us imagine that Fabio has written a document A, then Stefan takes this doc and modifies it (doc A2), then Paco takes this content A2 and modify it again (A3). Should the authors be notified of this changes? Probably yes. Then if Fabio takes his content A and modify it, creating content AB should Paco and Stefan be notified that the seed document has been modified?
  • Approval policies : once somebody reuses my content, do I require my approval on the final version to see that my content has been used appropriately and interpreted correctly? - Policies to opt out : if I do not want to be part of this team anymore, and I want to opt out, what happens to my content? I probably cannot just delete my content, also because other authors have already taken that and modified it and included it in their books.
  • Once Stefan has taken some content from Paco's and Fabio's one, he will have edited that, changed/added something and then arranged the new content in a new book tailored for his class of  "Web 2.0 applications". Now the problem is: who is the author of the book? and, how to decide this? It is clear that Stefan did the main work, but he took content that Fabio and Paco have written.  Possible solutions could be:  - Stefan is listed as main author (a sort of editor), and Fabio and Paco are listed as contributors (but on the main cover); - The three authors are listed simply "as authors", without any distinction; - Stefan is listed as the only author, but inside the book, for each section there is the indication of who wrote/inspired/initiate the section itself.  - There is authorship with the description of what each contributed, what has been reused, extent of changes, etc.... -...
  • There are lots of platforms that should support the collaborative writing: svn, gdocs, wiki, etc. However each one of that lacks some support for different tasks. Some platforms, like gdocs, are in principle very simple to use, while lacking lots of features (like ...), some others are more complete, but sometime require a learning effort that discourage the user to deal with that.  Also: how much can the IT do for us? 
  • ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
  • The Web has changed the way we get, share, produce and consume scientific content. We have now new formats and new types of scientific content: We have blogs, papers, datasets.. provided by a variety of services on the Internet. Publishing is almost free. In traditional and non traditional sources. The problem has become, for the readers. How do I get interesting an relevant content? For the authors, how do I make my work visible? The problem is now the attention [Huberman] ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
  • New content, when the idea is to bring interesting collections to users. ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
  • ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
  • ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
  • ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
  • ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
  • ICSOC/ServiceWave2009

General presentation of the LiquidPub project General presentation of the LiquidPub project Presentation Transcript

  • Welcome to LiquidPub Snow Workshop 2010 ! Special thanks to prof. Yi-Cheng Zhang and the Fribourg team
  • Information about the workshop
    • Agenda, format, future events
    View slide
  • Workshop agenda - 1 View slide
  • Workshop agenda - 2
    • Friday, 5 February:
      • Morning dedicated to three panels running in parallel
        • Panel A: Dissemination and discovery of scientific knowledge
        • Panel B: Collaborative creation of scientific knowledge
        • Panel C: Novel methods for organizing conferences
      • 9:00-11:00 statements and discussion
        • 3- 5 min statements from external participants.
        • Goal: get feedbacks on topics, taking into account LiquidPub use cases, and transform it into actionable ideas . 
        • Panels run in parallel, so you have to choose
      • 11:00-11:30 break (reporters finalize report)
      • 11:30-12:30 - Recap: summary about three panels (in one room)
      • 12:30-13:30 Lunch
      • Afternoon: free (chatting or skiing or spa or…)
    /13
  • Workshop agenda – 3
    • Friday, 5 February:
      • 17:00-19:00 collaborative sessions
        • (20+5 mins) Wybo Wiersma - LogiLogi project
        • Marc Herbstritt - Dagstuhls experience regarding creation, dissemination, and evaluation of research in computer science,  problems that we realize and possible future changes
        • (15+5 mins) Roberto Casati - Is this the scientific article of tomorrow?
      • 19:00-20:30 Dinner
      • 21:00 Informal discussions
  • Workshop agenda – 3
    • Saturday, 6 February:
      • 9:00-12:00 Feedback from the Advisory Board. Open to everyone.    - Feedbacks    - Suggestions for improvements
      • 12:00 Leaving or skiing
  • Panel A: Dissemination and discovery of scientific knowledge
    • Reporter : Nardine Osman, IIIA-CSIC
    • Moderator : Zhang Yi-Cheng, University of Fribourg
    • Statements :
      • "" by Ethan Munson, ACM SIGWEB
      • "" by Darren Dahly, University of Leeds
      • "Developing measures of /impact/ , /promisingness/ and /relatedness/ of scientific publications" by Peep Küngas, University of Tartu
      • "" by Luca Cernuzzi, Universidad Católica – Asunción
      • "" by Stefano Ceri, Politecnico di Milano
    • Participants : Maurizio Marchese, Marcos Baez, Judith Simon, Muhammad Imran, Volha Bryl, Mrs. Dahly
    /13
  • Panel B: Collaborative creation of scientific knowledge
    • Reporter : Joseph Wakeling, CNRS
    • Moderator : Fausto Giunchiglia, University of Trento
    • Statements :
      • "LogiLogi: A minimalistic platform for philosophical discussions" by Wybo Wiersma, King's College London
      • "" by Moshe Chai Barukh, University of New South Wales
      • "Dialectic: Consensus and Presuppositions" Munindar P. Singh, North Carolina State  University (IFAAMAS Board representative)
      • "" by Jeff Johnson, Open University
    • Participants : Azzurra Ragone, Carles Sierra, Alfred Hofmann, Matus Medo
    /13
  • Panel C: Novel methods for organizing conferences
    • Reporter : Aliaksandr Birukou, University of Trento
    • Moderator : Roberto Casati, CNRS
    • Statements :
      • "Dagstuhls experience" by Marc Herbstritt, Dagstuhl
      • "Unconferences: running conferences without chairs" by Cesare Pautasso, University of Lugano
      • "" by Wang Binhong
      • "" by Anita de Waard, Elsevier
    • Participants : Maria Teresa Serafini, Jordi Sabater-Mir, Katsiaryna Mirylenka, Diego Ponte, Ronald Chenu
    /13
  • Future events
    • We’ll do several similar workshops, but more focused on the topics of:
      • Reputation and metrics
      • Licensing, copyright, business models for publishers
      • Recommendations and search for interesting content
    • Send an e-mail to Aliaksandr Birukou (birukou AT disi.unitn.it) if you are interested, indicating the topic
      • Advisory board is especially welcomed to participate
    • We’ll setup dates using doodle among interested people (and probably collocate events with LP meetings)
    /13
  • Something about LiquidPub project University of Trento, Italy Spanish National Research Council, Spain Springer, Germany Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France University of Fribourg, Switzerland
  • Challenge: doing science in the 21 st
    • The Web has changed many fields:
      • News (blogs, RSS feeds, ...)
      • Music (p2p networks, iTunes, lastFM, …)
      • Travel (Orbiz, Google maps,…)
      • Photos (Flikr, …)
    • Has it changed also scientific knowledge production and dissemination processes ?
    • Yes ! But - so far - mainly
      • new and faster dissemination access channels
      • distributed working environment
    • Scientific knowledge processes are still mainly based on the traditional notion of “paper” publication and on peer review as quality assessment method
    Challenge: doing science in the 21 st Challenge: doing science in the 21 st
  • In a nutshell: the goal
    • Capture the lessons learned and opportunities provided by the Web and open source, agile development to develop concepts, models, metrics, and tools for an efficient (for people), effective (for science), and sustainable (for publishers and the community ) way of creating, disseminating, evaluating, and consuming scientific knowledge . Understand what’s good for science, and make it happen
    • project.liquidpub.org and project.liquidpub.org/research-areas
    • “ Publish and perish: why the current publication and review model is killing research and wasting your money” (ACM Ubiquity 8(3), Feb 2007),
    • and 
    • “ Liquid Publications: Scientific Publications meet the Web”
    • by Fabio Casati, Fausto Giunchiglia and Maurizio Marchese
  • Objective
    • Understand
      • Dissemination models and overhead
      • Evaluation processes, and quality/impact of research (people, papers, projects)
      • Collaborative methodologies and environments
      • Scientific communities
      • Business models and processes
    • Improve
      • Better ways to do the same things
      • Enable different things
      • Principles
      • Models
      • IT services
    • Everything counts!! (not just papers, not just “innovations”)
    • Minimal dissemination overhead
    • Early sharing
    • Early feedback/interaction
    • Find diversity
    • Interestingness and sharing as measures of reputation
    • No gatekeeping. Use the filtering power of the community
      • We are not necessarily right!! Let the community select the principles and models
    Principles and objectives of “good” science
  • A large number of technologies are out there
    • Blogs
    • Wikis
    • Collaborative tagging and social bookmarking
    • Scientific Search Services
    • Journals with collaborative peer review processs
    • More Complex Systems
  • But how they can be effectively used ?
    • Let’s explore some dimensions of the issue
      • New models for dissemination, sharing, evaluation and discovery of scientific knowledge  LiquidJournal (Panel A)
      • Agile, Collaborative, Open Source creation of scientific knowledge  LiquidBook (Panel B)
      • Innovative methods models for organizing conferences  LiquidConferences (Panel C)
  • Liquid journals Concepts and Motivation
  • Motivating Scenario
    • What’s the goal of journals today?
      • Select and group related content, after a submission of a paper
      • Useful to find content, useful (?) to evaluate
    • What’s under the hood?
      • Print/ship cost money: need to be sure it’s good before it is published. Only way peer review
      • “ issues”/volumes needed for printing and organizational reasons
    • Probably the best possible model in the pre-web era
    Liquidpub Snow Workshop 2010 Scarce resource was printing and distribution
    • The Web has changed the way we get, share, produce and consume scientific content
    The Web Era Liquidpub Snow Workshop 2010 Internet
    • Also social changes..
    The Web Era Liquidpub Snow Workshop 2010 Readers Authors How do I get interesting content! How do I make my work visible! The scarce resource is now the attention [Huberman]
    • Original reasons for the current model are gone
      • (does not necessarily mean current model is still not the best)
    • Back to the roots: How to provide interesting content?
    Journals: Revisited datasets papers blogs Liquidpub Snow Workshop 2010
  • Liquid journals: Proposal ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
  • Example: LJ on Peer review ICSOC/ServiceWave2009 Editor Creation
  • Example: LJ on Peer review ICSOC/ServiceWave2009 Editor Evolution
  • Example: LJ on Peer review ICSOC/ServiceWave2009 Editor Evolution
  • Example: LJ on Peer review ICSOC/ServiceWave2009 Editor Readers Feedback Tagging Sharing Comsumption
    • Get interesting and relevant scientific content
      • Multi-faceted: blogs, papers, datasets, etc..
      • Peer-reviewed vs. non peer-reviewed
      • Diverse content
    • Real-time dissemination and evaluation
    • Consider other aspects of research productivity
      • Good selector, good ideas, good reviewer..
    • Enable early dissemination and sharing
    • Publish first, then gain acceptance (editors)
    Liquid journals: Benefits
  • Reputation in liquid journals
  • Liquid Books (LB) Concepts and Motivation
  • Overview
    • Liquid Books (LB): what are they?
    • LB Issues
  • Liquid Books: What are they?
    • The liquid book concept is a set of models and tools for writing and publishing books that are complete , up to date and targeted to specific group of readers.
  • Liquid Books: What are they?
    • Liquid books (LB) are:
      • Collaborative Evolutionary Possibly open-source Multi-faceted
      • versions of the Traditional Books
    • Composed of different kind of artifacts:
      • docs, slides, excercises, experiments, code, etc.
  • LB: What's new
    • Differently from WikiBook I can have different roles in the community:
      • Authors
      • Contributors
      • People who just rate, write comments/reviews
    • We want to offer a (legal) framework to authors to easier collaboration
    • Tailored material for different needs (classes, professionals). Several Personalized Editions which stay up-to-date with the current state of the art.
    • Multi-Faceted Content
    • Sharing and reusing of content among a trusted network of authors, who guarantee the quality
    • But...
      • Can an author just take somebody else’s content and put it into his book without any change?
      • This brings up some issues...
    Let’s start a LB! The Big Pot Fabio Stefan Paco LB2 LB1 LB3 Share Share Share
  • Scenario: textbook
    • Focus:
      • Reuse of Content, Legal Issues and Credit attribution.
    • Assumptions.
      • In this scenario, we do not care about:
        • How content is organized and retrieved
        • IT platform where content is actually hosted (svn, launchpad, etc.)
        • The multi-faced form of content.
      • Small set of authors
      • Small amount of content
      • LB just started
      • Final Output: PDF + Companion Site.
      • Focus on what I can change, not how much
      • How to implement guarantee that content is used in an appropriate way?
      • to track/allow:
        • Micro changes (e.g. Moving references, adjusting terminology)
        • Macro changes (e.g. Table of contents structure)
        • Changes concerning the meaning (e.g. conceptual disagreement)
        • Changes concerning personal opinions or perspectives
    Issue #1: Extent of modification and reuse allowed
  • Issue #2: Notification of Changes A1 A2 A3 AB Change 11 Change 12 Change 13 notification notification notification notification notification Fabio Fabio Stefan Paco
      • Approval Policies
        • e.g. ask for content’s owner approval each time it’s changed
      • Policies to opt out
        • e.g. Paco doesn’t wants to be in the team anymore, so we delete all his content?
      • Can IT currently help to track changes in this scenario?
    Issue #3: Policies
      • Who decides it?
      • Supposing that Stefan did the main work (possible solutions):
        • Stefan as the main author. Fabio, Paco as contributors (on the main cover)
        • All authors without distinction.
        • Stefan is as the only author, but inside the book, for each section there is the indication of who wrote/inspired/initiate the section itself. 
        • There is authorship with the description of what each contributed, what has been reused, extent of changes, etc.
    Issue #4: Authorship
      • Authorship is not only about “intellectual property”
      • Need of number/percentages of reuse/changes
    Issue #5: Royalties (who gets the money)
    • What do we need from the IT platform?
      • e.g. Tracking changes, estimate kind/amount of changes
    • What we already have?
      • Collaborative writing platforms (wikis, gdocs, svn, etc.)
    • What we need that is not already there?
      • Contractual Framework
      • Credit attribution rules
    • Because of these issues, at the end Paco, Stefan and Fabio give up the idea of having different books. So, they go traditional...
    Issue #6: IT platform
  • Issue #7: Business aspects
  • General Phases
    • Agreement : The author(s) can start arranging the first version of the book. This phase is completely up to the authors.
    • Creation : The original content of the LB (the big pot) can be stored either on the (a) IT platform or ( b ) on other systems.
    • Publishing: At least two kinds of publishing might be foreseen: one is traditional , the second is “ verifed ”. The “ verfied ” guarantees the persistence of the book (for instance a publisher that publishes the book with an ISBN, DOI or a University that publishes the LB through its internal publishing service).
      • Publishing Versions. The version arranged by authors might be published on the web to gather feedback from readers. The version of the LB might be published on a personal website, institutional archives or publishers websites.
      • Publishing Editions. Actors may be willing to publish an edition which is a fixed and citable version of the LB. The version of the LB might be published on a personal website, institutional archives or publishers websites.
      • Note: by publishing we mean “publishing on the web”. So it does not have the traditional meaning.
  • General Phases
    • AGREEMENT : The author(s) can start arranging the first version of the book.
    • CREATION : The original content of the LB (the big pot) can be stored either on the (a) IT platform or ( b ) on other systems.
    • PUBLISHING: VERSIONS and EDITIONS might be published in two modes: “ NORMAL” or “ VERIFIED ”.
      • NOTE: by publishing we mean “publishing on the web”. So it does not have the traditional meaning.
    Versions Editions Normal “ Solid version” Verified The persistence of the book is guaranteed (ISBN, DOI or University internal publishing service)
  • LB idea Process NOT based on a LB platform (content is dispered around the Internet) Process based on a LB platform Big pot : Version zero and other common versions
    • Authors agree on licensing:
    • Public domain
    • CC
    • Traditional copyright
    Personal versions (authors might use part of the book). It relies on the licensing agreement . Edition 1 Ready (frozen) VERIFIED edition 1 (frozen) or verified version Dissemination of Edition 1 or Version (hardcopy, pdf, multimedia, etc) Third party website … Personal website Third party website Traditional Publisher Personal website Advertisement through email, mailng lists, social networks, etc. Advertisement through email, mailng lists, social networks, etc. Advertisement through the personal channels of the publisher Dissemination of verified Edition 1 or verified Version Agreement and creation Publication
  • LB idea Process NOT based on a LB platform (content is dispered around the Internet) Process based on a LB platform Big pot : Version zero and other common versions
    • Authors agree on licensing:
    • Public domain
    • CC
    • Traditional copyright
    Personal versions (authors might use part of the book). It relies on the licensing agreement . Edition 1 Ready (frozen) VERIFIED edition 1 (frozen) or verified version Dissemination of Edition 1 or Version (hardcopy, pdf, multimedia, etc) Third party website … Personal website Third party website Traditional Publisher Personal website Advertisement through email, mailng lists, social networks, etc. Advertisement through email, mailng lists, social networks, etc. Advertisement through the personal channels of the publisher Dissemination of verified Edition 1 or verified Version Agreement and creation Publication
  • LB idea Process NOT based on the LB platform (content is dispered around the Internet) Process based on the LB facilitating platform Version zero (special version which contains all the content of the authors)
    • Authors agree on licensing:
    • Public domain
    • CC
    • Coyright
    Personal versions (authors might use part of the book). It relies on the licensing agreement Edition 1 Ready (freezed version) VERIFIED edition 1 (freezed version) The verified version is the one with an ISBN or DOI that “certifies” its existence. Dissemination of edition 1 Third party website … Personal website Third party website Traditional Publisher Personal website Advertisement through email, mailng lists, social networks, etc. Advertisement through email, mailng lists, social networks, etc. Advertisement through the personal channels of the publisher Dissemination of verified edition 1 1° service : website that provides storing and management services 2° service : provider of ISBN or DOI ( NB : ISBN can be provided by offical publishers only) 3° service : online bookstore 4° service : traditional publisher services
  • Actors
    • AUTHORS : they are the trigger of the whole use case. The developed LB might be disseminated in several ways.
    • LB EDITOR: this person is responsible of wrapping up the book (it can be an author of the book or a third person).
    • PUBLISHER: this role is a variegate role that might offer different services. Among others, the most relevant for the case study seem to be:
      • Provider of ISBN or DOI
      • Online bookstore .
      • Traditional publisher
    • LB PLATFORM MANAGER: this role offers ad hoc storing, management and publishing services.
  • Actors and revenue streams Actors Services in the LB use case Revenue stream Author “ Provides” content
    • “ Give it for free”
    • Sell Editions
      • on a personal webpage
      • through online bookstore
      • through publisher
    • Rent access to Versions
    Providers of tracking numbers
    • Provider of ISBN or DOI (NB: ISBN can be provided by offical publishers only)
    • Payment of the service
    Online bookstore
    • Sells the digital/hardcopy editions of the book or give access to versions
    • Sell Editions
    • Rent access to Versions
    Traditional publisher
    • Traditional services
    • Sells the digital/hardcopy editions of the book
    • Gives access to the versions
    • Sell Editions
    • Rent access to Versions
    LB management website
    • Offers storing and management services
    • Sell give access to editions/versions
    • Web-based business models
  • Selling Editions and renting Versions Selling editions
    • Sell hardocopy
    • Extra content (docs, slides, excercies, data, code, etc)
    • Multimedia content
    Renting access to versions
    • Access to:
      • Full version
      • Extra content (docs, slides, exercises, data, code, etc)
      • Multimedia content
    • Sell “frozen” version
      • Digital version
      • Hardcopy
  • Liquid Conferences Concepts and Motivation
  • Scientific Knowledge Objects Overview
  • Reviewing Peer review
  • What are SKOs?
    • SKO is an acronym for Scientific Knowledge Object
    • Created as the unit for representing Scientific Knowledge within the Liquid Publications project
    • The SKO needs to be able to represent the Data and Knowledge from Scientific Knowledge to enable the World of Liquid Publications
    • This presentation covers version 2 of SKOs
    Liquidpub Snow Workshop 2010 /13
  • Structural Dimension Liquidpub Snow Workshop 2010 Presentation Serialization Semantic File Data pointed by a URL Conceptual and relation information Serialization of data and metadata Url1 Url2 Url3 Url4 URL2,URL1,URL3, URL4, Set of URLs Second and following pages of content Title, Authors and Abstract Main content Comment URL0 SURL1 Metadata Node containing title, authors, abstract File Node containing main content Points SURL2 Metadata Node containing the note “This is good” File fragment selecting the last part of the content Metadata Node containing title, authors and abstract for the whole document Content nodes representing each of the pages of the document Semantic Annotation “comment” with a value “This is good” SURL4 b “ Part of” Semantic Annotation a File fragment selecting the part to which apply the annotation Title of the document (metadata) Data of nodes 1, 0 and 2 Data of node 4 and link to node 5 SURL0 Use title from SKO Use full data from these nodes Use this node as a reference Ordering and use of the nodes of a Document Tree LURL0 Serialization node Table of Contents Full-text Document Bibliography LURL Aggregation order of Serialization Nodes Visualization and style information Document, Style1 Document, Style2 Style modification for the word “Objects” LURL0 PURL1 Presentation Metadata containing a style change for the word “Objects” Serialization fragment selecting the word “Objects” from the title Points PURL2 Serialization Node Presentation Metadata containing style Objects This amounts to a set of URLs with some parameters for "sharp sign" fragments. The URLs include not only all the resources belonging to this document but also the URLs belonging to the documents pointed to (or referenced) from this one. Finally, one or more URLs are defined for aggregations of URL (for example, a single global URL for the whole document). This amounts to a set of URLs with some parameters for "sharp sign" fragments. The URLs include not only all the resources belonging to this document but also the URLs belonging to the documents pointed to (or referenced) from this one. Finally, one or more URLs are defined for aggregations of URL (for example, a single global URL for the whole document). This amounts to a set of URLs with some parameters for "sharp sign" fragments. The URLs include not only all the resources belonging to this document but also the URLs belonging to the documents pointed to (or referenced) from this one. Finally, one or more URLs are defined for aggregations of URL (for example, a single global URL for the whole document). the documents pointed to (or referenced) from this one. Finally, one or more URLs are defined for aggregations of URL (for example, a single global URL for the Scientific Knowledge Objects Fausto Giunchiglia, Ronald Chenu-Abente Dipartimento di Ingegneria e Scienza dell'Informazione Via Sommarive, 14 I-38123 POVO {fausto, chenu }@disi.unitn.it Abstract: Dsdkasd sdldsfjsdl fsdfkljsdl dfjdfj fdjkf, daskds, sdjsdk, asdskdsdkjk. Dasdkjlask dasd dhtr;jvnmcv fdfjdri fdfjkdf dkfjdir Keywords: dasdas, gfgdfg, gertsdf, vcxfgsdr This part is good! 0 1 2 3 This amounts to a set of URLs with some parameters for "sharp sign" fragments. The URLs include not only all the resources belonging to this document but also the URLs belonging to the documents pointed to (or referenced) from this one. Finally, one or more URLs are defined for aggregations of URL (for example, a single global URL for the whole document). Semantic Tree Example the documents pointed to (or referenced) from this one. Finally, one or more URLs are defined for aggregations of URL (for example, a single global URL for the whole document). This amounts to a set {LINK TO URL6] 4 3 1 2 5 Bibliography [1] ASHRI, R., RAMCHURN, S. D., SABATER, J., LUCK, M., AND JENNINGS, N. R. Trust evaluation through relationship analysis. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS ’05) (New York, NY, USA, 2005), ACM, pp. 1005–1011. [2] CASATI, F., GIUNCHIGLIA, F., AND MARCHESE, M. Publish and perish: why the current publication and review model is killing research and wasting your money. ACM Ubiquity (11 2006). [3] CASATI, R., ORIGGI, G., SCHNEIDER, L., AND VELTRI, G. Liquidpub position paper, October 2008. [4] DE WAARD, A. The pragmatic research article. In 2nd International Pragmatic Web Con- ference, Tilburg, 22nd-23rd Oct. 2007 (2008). [5] FABIO CASATI, FAUSTO GIUNCHIGLIA, M. M. Liquid publications: Sci- entific publications meet the web. Tech Report from Unitn, found at http://eprints.biblio.unitn.it/archive/00001313/01/073.pdf, 09 2007. [6] KIRCZ, J. G. Rhetorical structure of scientific articles: (1991), 354–372. This amounts to a set of URLs with some parameters for "sharp sign" fragments. The URLs include not only all the resources belonging to this document but also the URLs belonging to the documents pointed to (or referenced) from this one. Finally, one or more URLs are defined for aggregations of URL (for example, a single global URL for the whole document). the documents pointed to (or referenced) from this one. Finally, one or more URLs are defined for aggregations of URL (for example, a single global URL for the whole document). Scientific Knowledge Objects Fausto Giunchiglia, Ronald Chenu-Abente Dipartimento di Ingegneria e Scienza dell'Informazione Via Sommarive, 14 I-38123 POVO {fausto, chenu }@disi.unitn.it Abstract: Dsdkasd sdldsfjsdl fsdfkljsdl dfjdfj fdjkf, daskds, sdjsdk, asdskdsdkjk. Dasdkjlask dasd dhtr;jvnmcv fdfjdri fdfjkdf dkfjdir Keywords: dasdas, gfgdfg, gertsdf, vcxfgsdr This part is good! Table of Contents 1 Introductory Denitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.1 Considerations on Content and Data . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.2 Metadata, Attributes and Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Relation Attributes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Metadata-linked Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2 The Data Representation Level . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.1 SKOnode Denition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.2 SKOnode Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 The Composes" relation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 10 Representing a Complex Artifact as a SKOnode DAG. . . 11 A Global View of the System's SKOnode Graph. . . . . . . . 13 3 The Knowledge Representational Level . . . . . . . . . . .13 3.1 SKO Denition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.2 SKO Semantic Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 3.3 SKO Serialization Structure . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 15 3.4 SKOnodes vs SKOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 16 3.5 Knowledge Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 17 The Is compiled" relation. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 18 A Global view on the System's SKO Graph. .. . . . . . . . . . 19 1 Table of Contents 2 Full-text Doc. 3 Bib. Scientific Knowledge Objects Fausto Giunchiglia, Ronald Chenu-Abente Dipartimento di Ingegneria e Scienza dell'Informazione Via Sommarive, 14 I-38123 POVO {fausto, chenu }@disi.unitn.it Abstract: Dsdkasd sdldsfjsdl fsdfkljsdl dfjdfj fdjkf, daskds, sdjsdk, asdskdsdkjk. Dasdkjlask dasd dhtr;jvnmcv fdfjdri fdfjkdf dkfjdir Keywords: dasdas, gfgdfg, gertsdf, vcxfgsdr This part is good! Scientific Knowledge Objects Fausto Giunchiglia, Ronald Chenu-Abente Dipartimento di Ingegneria e Scienza dell'Informazione Via Sommarive, 14 I-38123 POVO {fausto, chenu }@disi.unitn.it Abstract: Dsdkasd sdldsfjsdl fsdfkljsdl dfjdfj fdjkf, daskds, sdjsdk, asdskdsdkjk. Dasdkjlask dasd dhtr;jvnmcv fdfjdri fdfjkdf dkfjdir Keywords: dasdas, gfgdfg, gertsdf, vcxfgsdr This part is good! This amounts to a set of URLs with some parameters for "sharp sign" fragments. The URLs include not only all the resources belonging to this document but also the URLs belonging to the documents pointed to (or referenced) from this one.
  • Evolution Dimension
    • Version Control is supported
      • For every layer
      • For parts and wholes
      • With support for splits and merges
    • Maturity and Certification
    Liquidpub Snow Workshop 2010 Property/State Gas Maturity Unfinished, Work-in-progress Certification None Persistence Unwarranted Liquid Draft, request-for-comments Author Web Solid Final Certifying Authority Web and Digital Libraries Gas Liquid Solid Maturity Malleability
  • Work-in-Progress
    • SKO data type prototype
    • Search and Navigation models
    • Dynamic and Query-based SKOs
    • Typing and Patterning
    • SKO Editor
    Liquidpub Snow Workshop 2010
  • Charters
  • Goal
    • To provide users with straight forward means for the specification and the automatic execution of the processes concerned with the creation, dissemination, and evaluation of research work.
    • creating and running conferences
    • managing projects
    • writing papers collaboratively
    • compiling books
  • What we need Management system Specification of research related process models User interface to interact with the system
  • What we currently have Management system Specification of research related process models User interface to interact with the system ConfMaster EasyChair PRE DEFINED PRE DEFINED Little flexibility, hard to change
  • What we want Process model specification tool User interface information Automated generation
  • What we want
    • The process model can be specified as a transition graph
    • An additional mapping file is needed to map the states of the transition graph to a set of 'views'.
    • Each peer laying a specific role in the process model should see a different set of views, based on its current state in the model.
  • The thechnology Islander specification language and tool Process model XML Widgets DB Visual components Mapping and visual components functionality
  • What an LP Management System should look like...
  • Exploring ranking in other contexts
  • Co-determination algorithms: the task How to best aggregate the ratings? (To minimize the errors or to best reproduce the “true“ ranking.)
  • Co-determination algorithms
  • Co-determination algorithms: performance metrics
  • Co-determination algorithms: artificial datasets
  • Co-determination algorithms: real datasets
  • Concluding remarks
  • What else we do?
    • Lifecycle management. http://project.liquidpub.org/research-areas/lifecycle-management
    • Discovering scientific communities. http://project.liquidpub.org/research-areas/scientific-community
    • Copyright and licensing. http://project.liquidpub.org/research-areas/copyright-and-licensing
    • LP Infrastructure (overall architecture, APIs, services) :
      • http://project.liquidpub.org/resman/
      • http://project.liquidpub.org/karaku
      • LP metadata repository: including SpringerLink, DBLP, ACM, CiteULike, …
  • How to collaborate
    • To get news about the project, etc.:
    • Google liquidpub-announce and subscribe if you are interested (VERY low traffic): http://disi.unitn.it/mailman/listinfo/liquidpub-announce
    • Or, follow us on twitter: http://twitter.com/liquidpub
    • To participate in the development of tools, visit web pages of tools:
      • http://project.liquidpub.org/reseval/
      • http://project.liquidpub.org/groupcomparison/
      • http://project.liquidpub.org/resman/
      • http://project.liquidpub.org/karaku
      • http://project.liquidpub.org/reputation/
      • http://project.liquidpub.org/gelee
  • Demos tonight
    • Table1 (Marcos)
      • Gelee: modelling and managing the lifecycle of web artifacts http://project.liquidpub.org/gelee/
      • LiquidJournals: redefining scientific journals in the web era http://project.liquidpub.org/research-areas/liquid-journal
    • Table 2 (Imran/Azzurra)
      • ResEval: research impact evaluation tool http://project.liquidpub.org/reseval/
      • GroupComparison: research impact evaluation tool for research groups http://project.liquidpub.org/groupcomparison/
    • Table 3 (Alex)
      • Community Engine tool: detecting scientific communities using research networks http://project.liquidpub.org/research-areas/scientific-community
  • Thanks for your attention (final slide)