[open-science] Open Science Data Image/Visualisation

Jenny Molloy jenny.molloy at okfn.org
Fri Aug 26 08:59:53 UTC 2011

Hi All

Another request re: the PLoS profile - does anybody know of a nice
visualisation either of or made using open science data? It would be
good to have an illustration to break up the text.
Thanks a lot!


On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 3:33 AM, Jenny Molloy <jenny.molloy at okfn.org> wrote:
> Hi All
> I've made quite a few changes to the PLoS Biology 'Community Page' on
> the working group, this is the final draft and I hope to send it in
> the next couple of days so now is your chance if you have any last
> minute comments or suggestions!
> http://okfnpad.org/sciencewg-PLoSBiology
> Many thanks
> Jenny
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Jenny Molloy <jenny.molloy at okfn.org> wrote:
>> Hi All
>> Thanks to those who have taken a look, if anyone else who would like
>> to comment and change things could do so by Sunday evening, I'll
>> attempt to get the revised version in to PloS on Monday.
>> Jenny
>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> Thaks Jenny - tremendous material to get started with.
>>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Jenny Molloy <jenny.molloy at okfn.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi All
>>>> The OKF was approached recently by PLoS Biology to write a piece on the
>>>> working group for their Community pages. I've drafted one, and it would be
>>>> great if some of you could take a look and comment!
>>>> http://okfnpad.org/sciencewg-PLoSBiology
>>>> Please make edits, add comments throughout the text or at the end.
>>>> Things to note:
>>>> It is requested that we don't use this entirely as a self promotion
>>>> activity and therefore focus mainly on a few things we do as opposed to
>>>> listing them all,
>>> Agreed. It may be worth pointing out that the OKF(-science) can act as a
>>> tool to collect and refine opintions and protocols. Unlike real-life
>>> meetings where the attendence is based on protoplasm, this approach allows
>>> anyone to participate. However the "product" is a considerable refinement of
>>> the ideas that went in. OKF takes its output quality seriously.
>>>> so I've tried to find a balance whilst including enough activities to
>>>> demonstrate the breadth of our scope. The focus is:
>>>> The Open Definition
>>>> The Panton Principles
>>>> I have taken it as our position that we support the idea that scientific
>>>> data should be open by default according to the Panton Principles (with all
>>>> the usual caveats for privacy, special cases etc). I'm pretty sure that this
>>>> reflects the views of most of the group, but I have mentioned that we are a
>>>> diverse bunch :)
>>>> I'd particularly like comments on:
>>>> Have I made it clear enough that the piece is discussing data associated
>>>> with published science (as per the PP)?
>>>> Are there interesting cases/examples/analogies that you think would fit in
>>>> the piece?
>>>> Any general comments on content or style
>>>> Please be frank - this is a great opportunity to get some exposure for the
>>>> group (and make us citeable) so we want this to be as good as possible.
>>> I agree we shouldn't advertise ourselves per se but it is worth making it
>>> clear that OKF can have a role to play as a formal part in the development
>>> of new protocols and approaches.
>>>> Thanks very much for your help!
>>>> Jenny
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> open-science mailing list
>>>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>>> --
>>> Peter Murray-Rust
>>> Reader in Molecular Informatics
>>> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
>>> University of Cambridge
>>> CB2 1EW, UK
>>> +44-1223-763069

More information about the open-science mailing list