[open-science] OKF: What shall I say at the Open Science Summit in Berkeley

[wilbanks@creativecommons.org]

Victoria stodden has put years of work into this; I would encourage you to look at her reproducible research standard proposal...on mobile so no links, but easy to Google.

----- Reply message -----
From: "Cameron Neylon" <cameron.neylon at stfc.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, Jul 6, 2010 12:30
Subject: [open-science] OKF: What shall I say at the Open Science Summit in Berkeley
To: "Jonathan Gray" <jonathan.gray at okfn.org>, "Peter Murray-Rust" <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>
Cc: <open-science at lists.okfn.org>


I like this idea a lot. Could I make a suggestion that the fifth one, rather
than being advocacy should be to make physical materials available? Creative
Commons have done a lot of work recently on generic MTAs in an effort to
make sharing physical materials as easy and consistent as data and code.
Advocacy for me is the centre of the flower and the five petals Open Data,
Open access papers/communication, Open Code, Open process, Open Materials.

I am giving a similar 10 minutes at the summit (I think on the same panel as
Peter?) and was intending to focus on process as the area that has received
the least work and has the weakest framework to build on in my view.

So for instance we can say as criteria:

Data -> PP
OA -> SPARC OA Seal, CC-BY
Code -> OSI compliant
Materials -> CC-MTA (actually I'm unsure what level should be recommended
here)

Process -> ? We don't really have equivalents beyond Jean-Claude's
delayed/non-delayed and full record/partial record ONS claims

Cheers

Cameron


On 06/07/2010 20:06, "Jonathan Gray" <jonathan.gray at okfn.org> wrote:

> That would be great. Think its crucial to have *very* clear criteria
> for the petals -- so binary Y/N question is easy to answer (e.g. PP
> compliant? OSI compliant? 'Libre' OA? ...)
> 
> J.
> 
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Thanks J
>> 
>> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Jonathan Gray <jonathan.gray at okfn.org>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> The 10 ideas for opening up scientific data is a great idea. Perhaps
>>> we could start a pad to iterate on this?
>>> 
>>> 5 ideas for starters:
>>> 
>>>  * Data: Open up your research data in accordance with the Panton
>>> Principles.
>>>  * Publications: Deposit your publications in an open access
>>> repository -- or publish in open access journal. Ideally under an open
>>> license (such as Creative Commons Attribution).
>>>  * Code: Make software available under an open source license.
>>>  * Process: Let others know what you're doing: whether via a blog,
>>> public mailing lists, or social networking sites.
>>>  * Advocacy: Encourage students, researchers and colleagues to do the
>>> same!
>>> 
>> If we stick with 4 or 5 we could have a logo (e.g. a flower) with  petals
>> each with a letter on. Then people could publish this flower with the petals
>> coloured in for each thing they have done. Rather liike the Geek code or
>> Stackoverflow badges.
>> 
>> We should also have very simple things people can do - like adding open data
>> stickers to their blog, etc. We need to have the resources that they point
>> to when clicked.
>> 
>> 
>>> P.
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Peter Murray-Rust
>> Reader in Molecular Informatics
>> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
>> University of Cambridge
>> CB2 1EW, UK
>> +44-1223-763069
>> 
> 
> 

-- 
Scanned by iCritical.

_______________________________________________
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/20100706/b44fa60c/attachment-0001.html>