[open-science] Open repositories

Thu Jul 8 13:42:53 UTC 2010

thanks peter.

as a start, i wonder if something could be put together that was essentially
a mashup of github (code), infochimps (data), and a file server for papers.
all wrapped with a choice of OA/FOSS etc. licenses to choose from.

it probably wouldn't scale indefinitely as a solution, but having a place
for people to go would be a good start in terms of increasing awareness of
this as an option, and demand for those kinds of services.

thoughts?
jessy

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Jessy Cowan-Sharp <
> jessy.cowansharp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> didn't want to hijack the other thread so i changed the subject line, but
>> i'm curious (and perhaps this is a naive question):
>>
>> You didn't actually change the subject so I have done so
>
>
>> what open access repositories are there which people recommend, besides,
>> say, arxiv.org? arxiv.org itself doesn't seem to have a strong (or at
>> least not explicit) stance on licenses and such. and are there any OA
>> archives where people can submit their code/data along with their paper (in
>> such a way that it is formally associated with that paper?)
>>
>>
> It's probably useful to differentiate between code/data/documents. The
> current usage is:
>
> open access - papers
> open source - code
> open data     - data
>
> OpenSource is usually stored in specialist software repositories, which
> should have  a powerful versioning system (SVN or better Mercurial or Git).
> Typical repos are Sourceforge and bitbucket. These repos *could* be used for
> otehr material (such as data or documentation but this is probably not a
> good idea technically, as there is no good text search facility, etc)
>
> OpenAccess material is usually stored in paper-oriented repos (DSPace,
> Eprints, Fedora) and are commonly found in Universities and similar insts
> and run by LIS staff. They are totally unsuited to software and data (go on,
> someone, ask me why!)
>
> OpenData is relatively new. The problems of storing it are considerable and
> largely unsolved. Problems include versioning, dynamic updating, metadata,
> formats, lack of specialist knowledge (there are (tens of) thousands of
> common formats (e.g. several hundred alone in chemistry). This is my
> speciality and I don't know the answer. I suspect it will be domain-specific
> (e.g. biosequences, etc, are well supported at present, chemistry has
> possiblle solutions but there are rabid anticommons interests in chemistry,
> particle physics is huge, climate is hyperpolitical, etc.) OKF is as good a
> place to start as any (though we can't store huge datasets and are more
> likely to address metadata).
>
>
>>
>
> --
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069
>

-- 
Jessy Cowan-Sharp
http://jessykate.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20100708/a6179eaa/attachment-0001.html>