[open-science] open-science Digest, Vol 42, Issue 18

[Charles Bailey]

The Digital Curation Centre defines digital curation as "maintaining,
preserving and adding value to digital research data throughout its
lifecycle." The DCC's digital curation lifecycle model includes these
steps: conceptualise, create, access and use, appraise and select,
dispose, ingest, preservation action, reappraise, store, access and
reuse, and transform.  See http://bit.ly/9pkCTk.

The Digital Curation and Preservation Bibliography 2010 (OA PDF
available) provides coverage of the literature: http://bit.ly/hPJwm0.

Best Regards,
Charles

Charles W. Bailey, Jr.
Publisher, Digital Scholarship
http://bit.ly/Z6HFx

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 12:55 PM,  <open-science-request at lists.okfn.org> wrote:
> Send open-science mailing list submissions to
>        open-science at lists.okfn.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        open-science-request at lists.okfn.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        open-science-owner at lists.okfn.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of open-science digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. this "data curation" of which you speak (Tom Roche)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 14:00:55 -0400
> From: Tom Roche <Tom_Roche at pobox.com>
> Subject: [open-science] this "data curation" of which you speak
> To: open-science at lists.okfn.org,
> Message-ID: <87zkars7fs.fsf at pobox.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
>
> Jessy Kate Schingler Wed, 4 Apr 2012 09:48:13 -0700
>> having the technical solution [for developing open science] doesn't
>> mean we have a cultural solution, and at the moment, IMHO, the main
>> challenges for peer review are cultural and procedural. having
>> clear, alternative workflows for publication (eg., is it publish -->
>> review --> curate? or review --> curate --> publish? etc.),
>
> Just to nail down this term of art: I'm guessing "data curation"
> denotes "managing a data collection," no? and "curating open data"
> connotes activities like, e.g.,
>
> * securing public availability
> ** positive: ensuring public access, backup
> ** negative: preventing unauthorized modification, theft, DoS
> * enhancing public access
> ** providing identifiers (whether, e.g., DOIs or Plain Old URIs)
> ** submitting to other collections
>
> Or am I very confused? If not, I claim curation of some sort is
> required for all but the most trivial and unscalable review:
>
> Consider this narrative: I get a dataset, it looks important, I invest
> work in assimilating it, exploring it, and generating visualizations,
> I strengthen my hunch. At this point, I seek "review" or "publication"
> in at least the minimal sense of saying "hey, look @ this" to peers.
> For which I'm gonna wanna
>
> - put the data (et al) somewhere accessible yet safe
> - send pointers to peers
>
> Does that not mean, I want some data curation?
>
> Furthermore, suppose that, after that informal process, I and my
> peer consultants agree the dataset and derived products (et al) is
> good enough to "get a pub" (whether poster, article, technical report,
> whatever). Certainly I would then want the dataset curated, e.g.,
> for linking from a paper (at least, as supporting information), no?
>
> Therefore, the flow should be [curate, review, publish], because
> curation promotes review. (And IMHO "review," of which "peer-reviewed
> publication" as we know it is a ceremonial subset, is that from which
> the goodness of scientific openness flows--but that is of course a
> much stronger claim.)
>
> FWIW, Tom Roche <Tom_Roche at pobox.com>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>
>
> End of open-science Digest, Vol 42, Issue 18
> ********************************************