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

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Cameron Neylon <cameron.neylon at stfc.ac.uk>wrote:

> 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?)


I am down the for evening before (and  also for the panel).

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
>

There is a lot of undercurrent at the moment about what I'll call Open
Methodology. Give use not only your data but what you did with it. That's
hard. A lot of people don't realise how technically hard that is. We are
trying to address this in Open Bibliography.



>
> 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.
>



-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20100706/9faafb32/attachment-0001.html>