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

[Mr. Puneet Kishor]

On Jul 14, 2010, at 4:23 PM, Daniel Mietchen wrote:

> Just listened to Victoria's talk at
> http://www.ischool.berkeley.edu/newsandevents/events/20100505deanslec#
> My notes are at
> http://friendfeed.com/danielmietchen/c1d82ee7/digitization-of-science-and-degradation
> .
> She mentions an NSF report due to come out this month in which
> guidelines for reproducible research in computing are included.



There might also be something useful in the papers/presentations at the NSF workshop on archiving experiments that I attended a few weeks ago --

http://users.emulab.net/trac/archive10/




> Guess that one could provide an interesting angle for Peter's OSS
> talk. Couldn't find it yet, though.
> 
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:36 PM, wilbanks at creativecommons.org
> <wilbanks at creativecommons.org> wrote:
>> 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
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 

-- 
Puneet Kishor http://punkish.org
Carbon Model http://carbonmodel.org
Charter Member, Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org
Science Commons Fellow, http://sciencecommons.org/about/whoweare/kishor
Nelson Institute, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assertions are politics; backing up assertions with evidence is science
=======================================================================