[open-science] Open Science Microformats/Pattern languages? was Re: Launch of the Panton Principles for Open Data in Science + Is It Open Data?

Wed Feb 24 06:18:10 UTC 2010

We tend to prefer RDFa over microformats, as it is infinitely more scalable.

Also, I would caution against badging the principles without adding *legal*
information to data. Self-asserting the principles does not actually comply
with the principles - only the use of an unambiguous legal tool opens up the
principles. This is an essential point. You will also want to think about
the importance of the data moving around the web without the legal
information, which is the reality of how data practice works. Do you want to
integrate the information into the data set itself, or point everyone back
to the page from which the data first came? Do you want to version the data?
All of this is pretty essential to the data being not just legally available
but useful in the future and should be part of the metadata.

There is basic support for CC0 RDFa in the CC0 webservice at
http://api.creativecommons.org/rest/dev/ and the CC Rights Expression
Language spec submitted to the W3C provides support for this as well, for at
least CC legal tools. The API documentation generally is at
http://api.creativecommons.org/rest/dev/, the CC RDFa docs at
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/RDFa and the CC REL spec is at
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Ccrel

jtw

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Jack Park wrote:
> > Speculative question: what would a microformat, or family of
> > microformats for open science look like? What pattern language(s)--to
> > borrow from Christopher Alexander--is(are) in play here?
>
> Many microformats are already out there. I think a good idea would be
> to figure out (1) what formats are already out there, (2) what the
> pain points are in publishing scientific data *as well as*
> supplementary information in standard ways, and (3) what people don't
> tend to know about but should, or don't use but should (like if it's
> hard or painful, etc).
>
> I have lately become a huge fan of YAML, JSON, etc., but to each his
> own (srsly). At the very least, in many situations I would be happy
> with XML, which is a drastic improvement over binary-encoded files and
> proprietary data formats.
>
> - Bryan
> http://heybryan.org/
> 1 512 203 0507
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20100224/4cb9f143/attachment-0001.html>