[open-science] github/R stack for the nomadic researcher

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Jessy Kate Schingler <jessy at jessykate.com>wrote:

> i agree on the dataforge front...  git doesn't handle large files well,
> and figshare, buzzdata etc. seem to be mostly for visual or tabular data
> sets. out of curiosity, as i'm starting to learn about thedatahub.com,


thedatahub.org I think


> it seems rather perfect for data set management, and even has a change
> lists for data sets, groups, user pages, etc. (especially if there were
> some command line tools so i could "commit" changes to my data set
> periodically and upload them :)).
>
> is there a reason people find ckan/thedatahub insufficient for data
> management needs? is it related to technical/features, or to peoples'
> familiarity and confidence around the longevity of the site?
>

It's history, I think. We should now be making the case for such a
repository and I don't think Figshare is it. I have rather negelected
datahub because the original CKAN was metadata-oriented.

I'll be making the case in Europe next week that we badly need informal
repositories and maybe this is the time to push the datahub?

P.



>
>
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>wrote:
>
>> Tom,
>> This is a really valuable post. I feel your concerns directly. I have
>> copied in our new Panton fellows (though I am sure they read this list
>> anyway!)
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Tom Roche <Tom_Roche at pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> [apologies for length of post, but it's a big topic]
>>>
>>
>> No apologies needed!
>>
>> I am giving an important presentation to  Europe "Open Infrastructures
>> for Open Science" and Neelie Kroes and others will be there. I am getting
>> my thoughts together as I have to give the plenary that informs the rest of
>> the workshop. Currently my thoughts are:
>>
>>
>>    - Europe (and the world) is losing 10 billion + in unused and
>>    restricted data. (I said this to Hargreaves)
>>    - We MUST have easily accessible research repositories, probably on a
>>    domain basis (Dryad, Pangaea, TARDIS, etc.)
>>    - Institutional Repos do not work for STM and never will
>>    - Mandates are a blunt weapon and so far have little effectiveness
>>    - Non-Commercial destroys knowledge
>>
>> We must give the researchers something they want. Sourceforge does this
>> for code. I use Sourceforge (actually now Bitbucket and Github) several
>> times a day. All my code is backed up, shareable, reusable, validated etc.
>>
>>    - There must be a "Data forge" for Europe. Figshare was built by one
>>    graduate student in one year. I would give 3rd year graduate students
>>    funding to do this - it's a hundred times more cost effective than
>>    repositories.
>>
>> I'd like to collect ideas on this llist and present them next week
>> (11th). An OKF data manifesto for Open Science (in Europe) Who knows what
>> might come?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> --
>> Peter Murray-Rust
>> Reader in Molecular Informatics
>> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
>> University of Cambridge
>> CB2 1EW, UK
>> +44-1223-763069
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-science mailing list
>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Jessy
> http://jessykate.com
>
>


-- 
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/20120402/040ccad3/attachment-0001.html>