Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Bringin the web to researchers


Published on

This presentation touches a number of the workshop topics. It will demonstrate systems developed at the Australian Digital Futures Institute for scholarly workflows. It is intended to spark discussion about issues and challenges in taking Scholarship beyond the PDF. It covers the following tasks: (a) managing draft documents and local data sets together, (b) formatting draft documents with as much robust, interoperable semantics as possible, using a word processor, so they can become part of a rich human and machine readable web of research practice and (c) pre-publication collaboration with immediate collaborators and via the web using annotation systems that have potential for use post-publication as well.
Four guiding principles inform the work. To make all resources part of a repository as soon as they are created or acquired. To provide a web view of all resources as early as possible in their production process. To provide a hub from which resources can be pushed to other services – journal review processes, blogs, repositories. And to make interoperable, reusable services, not monolithic systems.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Bringin the web to researchers

  1. 1. <ul>Bringing the Web to the researcher </ul><ul>Peter Sefton @ptsefton Australian Digital Futures Institute, University of Southern Queensland <li>“ The Australian Digital Futures Institute (ADFI) is a cross-institutional, multidisciplinary Institute with two work-streams - one pertaining to eLearning and the other to eResearch. “ </li></ul>
  2. 2. The ADFI technical team <ul><li>Bron Chandler
  3. 3. Duncan Dickinson
  4. 4. Oliver Lucido
  5. 5. Linda Octalina
  6. 6. Greg Pendlebury
  7. 7. Peter Sefton
  8. 8. Ron Ward
  9. 9. Cynthia Wong
  10. 10. Jason Zejfert </li></ul>
  11. 11. Outline <ul><li>Summary of our work in the authoring tools area ( highlights from the presentation proposa l) </li><ul><li>Course publishing
  12. 12. Institutional repositories
  13. 13. Research data registries </li></ul><li>Lessons learned, predictions & opinions
  14. 14. Thoughts for eScholarlship “Beyond the PDF” </li><ul><li>Make all resources part of a repository as soon as they are created or acquired.
  15. 15. Provide a web view of all resources as early as possible in their production process.
  16. 16. Provide a hub from which resources can be pushed to other services
  17. 17. Make interoperable, reusable services, not monolithic systems. </li></ul></ul>
  18. 18. Build it...
  19. 19. Will they come?.
  20. 20. Web feedback helps authors use templates
  21. 21. Save as web does not have to be bad <ul><li>But none of the major software vendors care... (sorry to my friends at MS Research I know you do) </li></ul>
  22. 22. We are thinking about how to embed Semantics in real world authoring systems <ul><li> tl_p= triplink= &tl_o=
  23. 23. The person or agent is a creator of this resource:
  24. 24. Idea: make any heading anywhere able to declare that is aboiut 'results': </li></ul>
  25. 25. Our contribution to Annotation <ul><li>Anotar toolkit for adding text, image, video (and data) annotation to any web system
  26. 26. We started with systems that can be used by web developers (jQuery): </li><ul><li>Then users
  27. 27. Then standardizers
  28. 28. Then theoreticians </li></ul></ul>
  29. 29. Anotar
  30. 30. Web FIRST (and that means moble and ePub too)
  31. 31. Lessons / opinions <ul><li>Validating XML editing is not for the masses
  32. 32. Starting a new document paradigm is hard (eg Wave, Etherpad, Groove)
  33. 33. Geek tools do not always scale or penetrate the whole market (RSS readers, bibliography managers)
  34. 34. Subversion is for programmers, not authors – DropBox is for people
  35. 35. 'Our' standards don't matter to the big players (OAI-PMH, OAI-ORE)
  36. 36. You can't make HTML from arbitrary Word or TeX documents
  37. 37. Natural language is not tree-shaped </li></ul>
  38. 38. The good news? <ul><li>Authors probably are ready for a structured, fluid WYSIWYM editor </li></ul>
  39. 39. Can we talk about “Scholarly HTML” this week?
  40. 40. What we can build: Interop
  41. 41. Bringing together docs and data <ul><li>Declarative semantics over ordering
  42. 42. Use declarative typed links to data – let the viewing application do something
  43. 43. Consider the limits of mainstream authoring systems – we will be dealing with them
  44. 44. Be of the web not just on it. </li></ul>
  45. 45. Homeless? Feral? Misguided?
  46. 46. Self-deposit does work Photo © Sandra Craig 2011
  47. 47. Copyright Peter Sefton, 2011. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Australia. < >