[openbiblio-dev] Open Biblio call tomorrow

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Jim Pitman <pitman at stat.berkeley.edu> wrote:

>
>
> > We see Open-bib as a centrepiece of our Open Science/Access efforts (see
> > open-science and open-access).
> What exactly do you mean by "open-science" and "open-access"? Projects?
> URLS? I seem to be out of this loop.
>

The OKFN lists:
http://science.okfn.org/ (run by Jenny Molloy and Laura Newman)
This has been going for some time and is has a special focus on data/biblio
for diseases (Open research Reports) . Will lead with malaria

http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access (run by Jenny Molloy and
Laura Newman as well I think)

A reaffirmation of the value of Libre Access (CC-BY/BOAI). Only 2 weeks
old. Meeting Thursday - time not attractive for PST. Currently working out
position and statement. Strong interaction with malaria project - strong
input from Tom Olijhoek


>
> > The interactive breakthrough will come (I think) when we can easily
> annotate records (I am thinking by adding new fields).
>
> Yes. But we need to be very thoughtful about the data model for this to
> work well. I think the right data model is to allow that
> agents like MathSciNet, PubMed, Google Scholar and others provide fairly
> stable records, and even more stable identifiers, and to distinguish
> what are essentially just copies of these records, which should be
> acknowledged to preserve provenance, and further derivative records.
>

That's the model I have assumed. It also extends to library collections
such as BNB and the german collection.


> Users, in their own collections, should be able to easily supplement such
> a record from any source with a correction in a field or two, and with
> supplementary fields.
> But the more common and effective use case will be for a user to create a
> new composite record from whatever records of the same object are out there.
> Daniel Hook's Symplectic software does a great job of this merging.  And I
> have some passes at this too. Essentially, this creates a new record, which
> the user owns, and
> which inherits some properties from the source records, and other
> properties which might be edits by hand, or provided with some machine
> processing, e.g. automated name-disambiguation
> or subject classification.  This is a difficult area of mangaging
> workflows for bibliographic data enhancement, but one which may be very
> rewarding.
> It will be hard to bound the scope of such efforts. I would be inclined to
> chip away at it a bit at a time, but with a data model where there is no
> apparent
> obstacle to further progress.
>
> I think that the technology and the community will find many ways of using
this. In the malaria project there is certainly no pressing need to
disambiguate or correct - so it's adding information. For books collections
who knows?



-- 
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/openbiblio-dev/attachments/20120207/b577b08b/attachment.html>