introduction: the past - future of research communications
TRANSCRIPT
The Future of Research Communica3ons: The Past
Anita de Waard Elsevier Labs/UUtrecht
h@p://elsatglabs.com/labs/anita
New Formats:Hypertext
2
Engelbart, 1968, First demo...
-‐ h9p://sloan.stanford.edu/MouseSite/1968Demo.html#player2 ‘If, in your office, you, as an intellectual worker, were supplied with a computer display backed up with a computer that was alive for you all day, and was instantly responsible, -‐ responsive, hehe -‐ how much value would you derive from that?’
...and first demonstraOon of hypertext:
-‐ h9p://sloan.stanford.edu/MouseSite/1968Demo.html#player11‘Content represents concepts, but there is also a rela+on between the content of concepts, their structure, and the structure of other domains of human thought, that is too complex to inves+gate in linear text’
New Formats: Hypertext
Three parts:
1.Modular content components2.Meaningful links
3.Claim -‐> evidence networks
3
• Kircz, ’98: “a much more radical approach would be to [break] apart the linear text into independent modules, each with its own unique cogniOve character.”
• Harmsze, ‘00: modular model for physics papers >
• XPharm, 2001: modular text book in pharmacology >>
• ABCDE Format: modular computer science proceedings paper >>>
• LiquidPub, 2010: Structured Knowledge Objects>>>>
• HCLS Rhet Doc: Medium-‐grained structure: core narraOve components ^
• DoCo: core Document Components
Hypertext, 1: Modular Content Components
4
• Kircz, ’98: “a much more radical approach would be to [break] apart the linear text into independent modules, each with its own unique cogniOve character.”
• Harmsze, ‘00: modular model for physics papers >
• XPharm, 2001: modular text book in pharmacology >>
• ABCDE Format: modular computer science proceedings paper >>>
• LiquidPub, 2010: Structured Knowledge Objects>>>>
• HCLS Rhet Doc: Medium-‐grained structure: core narraOve components ^
• DoCo: core Document Components
Hypertext, 1: Modular Content Components
4
• Kircz, ’98: “a much more radical approach would be to [break] apart the linear text into independent modules, each with its own unique cogniOve character.”
• Harmsze, ‘00: modular model for physics papers >
• XPharm, 2001: modular text book in pharmacology >>
• ABCDE Format: modular computer science proceedings paper >>>
• LiquidPub, 2010: Structured Knowledge Objects>>>>
• HCLS Rhet Doc: Medium-‐grained structure: core narraOve components ^
• DoCo: core Document Components
Hypertext, 1: Modular Content Components
4
• Kircz, ’98: “a much more radical approach would be to [break] apart the linear text into independent modules, each with its own unique cogniOve character.”
• Harmsze, ‘00: modular model for physics papers >
• XPharm, 2001: modular text book in pharmacology >>
• ABCDE Format: modular computer science proceedings paper >>>
• LiquidPub, 2010: Structured Knowledge Objects>>>>
• HCLS Rhet Doc: Medium-‐grained structure: core narraOve components ^
• DoCo: core Document Components
Hypertext, 1: Modular Content Components
4
Annotation
• Kircz, ’98: “a much more radical approach would be to [break] apart the linear text into independent modules, each with its own unique cogniOve character.”
• Harmsze, ‘00: modular model for physics papers >
• XPharm, 2001: modular text book in pharmacology >>
• ABCDE Format: modular computer science proceedings paper >>>
• LiquidPub, 2010: Structured Knowledge Objects>>>>
• HCLS Rhet Doc: Medium-‐grained structure: core narraOve components ^
• DoCo: core Document Components
Hypertext, 1: Modular Content Components
4
Annotation
• Kircz, ’98: “a much more radical approach would be to [break] apart the linear text into independent modules, each with its own unique cogniOve character.”
• Harmsze, ‘00: modular model for physics papers >
• XPharm, 2001: modular text book in pharmacology >>
• ABCDE Format: modular computer science proceedings paper >>>
• LiquidPub, 2010: Structured Knowledge Objects>>>>
• HCLS Rhet Doc: Medium-‐grained structure: core narraOve components ^
• DoCo: core Document Components
Hypertext, 1: Modular Content Components
4
Annotation
• Kircz, ’98: “a much more radical approach would be to [break] apart the linear text into independent modules, each with its own unique cogniOve character.”
• Harmsze, ‘00: modular model for physics papers >
• XPharm, 2001: modular text book in pharmacology >>
• ABCDE Format: modular computer science proceedings paper >>>
• LiquidPub, 2010: Structured Knowledge Objects>>>>
• HCLS Rhet Doc: Medium-‐grained structure: core narraOve components ^
• DoCo: core Document Components
Hypertext, 1: Modular Content Components
4
Annotation
• Harmsze (1999): Ontology of content relaOonships>
• IBIS, ClaiMaker: Linking argumentaOonal components >>
• Diligent argumentaOon ontology V
• RDF does allow for these funcOonaliOes, but most ontologies are sOll based on SKOS?!
Hypertext, 2: Meaningful links
5
• Harmsze (1999): Ontology of content relaOonships>
• IBIS, ClaiMaker: Linking argumentaOonal components >>
• Diligent argumentaOon ontology V
• RDF does allow for these funcOonaliOes, but most ontologies are sOll based on SKOS?!
Hypertext, 2: Meaningful links
5
• Harmsze (1999): Ontology of content relaOonships>
• IBIS, ClaiMaker: Linking argumentaOonal components >>
• Diligent argumentaOon ontology V
• RDF does allow for these funcOonaliOes, but most ontologies are sOll based on SKOS?!
Hypertext, 2: Meaningful links
5
• Harmsze (1999): Ontology of content relaOonships>
• IBIS, ClaiMaker: Linking argumentaOonal components >>
• Diligent argumentaOon ontology V
• RDF does allow for these funcOonaliOes, but most ontologies are sOll based on SKOS?!
Hypertext, 2: Meaningful links
5
• Harmsze (1999): Ontology of content relaOonships>
• IBIS, ClaiMaker: Linking argumentaOonal components >>
• Diligent argumentaOon ontology V
• RDF does allow for these funcOonaliOes, but most ontologies are sOll based on SKOS?!
Hypertext, 2: Meaningful links
5
• Special case of modules of content and meaningful relaOonships
• Buckingham Shum, 1999:>
• SWAN: Clark, Ciccarese et al., 2005: >
• HypER: 6 groups developing prototypes on this basis (Harvard, Oxford, DERI, KMI, Utrecht, SIOC)
• NanopublicaOons: research data + bit of knowledge (see also: the Present and the Future)
Hypertext, 3: Claim-‐Evidence Networks
6
• Special case of modules of content and meaningful relaOonships
• Buckingham Shum, 1999:>
• SWAN: Clark, Ciccarese et al., 2005: >
• HypER: 6 groups developing prototypes on this basis (Harvard, Oxford, DERI, KMI, Utrecht, SIOC)
• NanopublicaOons: research data + bit of knowledge (see also: the Present and the Future)
Hypertext, 3: Claim-‐Evidence Networks
6
• Special case of modules of content and meaningful relaOonships
• Buckingham Shum, 1999:>
• SWAN: Clark, Ciccarese et al., 2005: >
• HypER: 6 groups developing prototypes on this basis (Harvard, Oxford, DERI, KMI, Utrecht, SIOC)
• NanopublicaOons: research data + bit of knowledge (see also: the Present and the Future)
Hypertext, 3: Claim-‐Evidence Networks
6
• Special case of modules of content and meaningful relaOonships
• Buckingham Shum, 1999:>
• SWAN: Clark, Ciccarese et al., 2005: >
• HypER: 6 groups developing prototypes on this basis (Harvard, Oxford, DERI, KMI, Utrecht, SIOC)
• NanopublicaOons: research data + bit of knowledge (see also: the Present and the Future)
Hypertext, 3: Claim-‐Evidence Networks
6
• Special case of modules of content and meaningful relaOonships
• Buckingham Shum, 1999:>
• SWAN: Clark, Ciccarese et al., 2005: >
• HypER: 6 groups developing prototypes on this basis (Harvard, Oxford, DERI, KMI, Utrecht, SIOC)
• NanopublicaOons: research data + bit of knowledge (see also: the Present and the Future)
Hypertext, 3: Claim-‐Evidence Networks
6
So...
7
So...• The basic idea has been around since the 60ies• The standards, technologies and tools have been around since the nineOes
• But (almost) no content has been created this way -‐ why?
7
So...• The basic idea has been around since the 60ies• The standards, technologies and tools have been around since the nineOes
• But (almost) no content has been created this way -‐ why?
• Let’s look at the history of the other breakout topics first:– Tools and standards– Business models
– Research data– A9ribuOon and credit
7
Four periods:• 1960s -‐ 1980s, Pre-‐Web: Online databases, main concepts of hypertext
• 1990-‐2000, Web: Preprint servers, web ubiquitous; ‘era of standards’
• 2000 -‐ 2005, SemanOc Web: Seperate content from presentaOon; Open Access
• 2005 -‐ 2011: Social Web: Crowdsourcing, cloud compuOng, handhelds
1.What happened?
2.What stuck?
8
Tools and standards
9
• 1960s -‐ 1980s: (La)TeX, SGML, Word, WP
• 1990 -‐ 2000: XML, SMIL, XLink, SVG, CSS, PDF, MathML
• 2000 -‐ 2005: RDF; Annotea, Haystack, SemanOc Desktop
• 2005 -‐ 2011: LOD, Provenance; Twi9er, Skype, Google Docs, Github; Utopia...
Tools and standards
9
• 1960s -‐ 1980s: (La)TeX, SGML, Word, WP
• 1990 -‐ 2000: XML, SMIL, XLink, SVG, CSS, PDF, MathML
• 2000 -‐ 2005: RDF; Annotea, Haystack, SemanOc Desktop
• 2005 -‐ 2011: LOD, Provenance; Twi9er, Skype, Google Docs, Github; Utopia...
What stuck, and why? Some thoughts:
• LaTeX, MathML: Fierce community of adopters who like UI
• Word, PDF: Commercial interest to maintain front end
• XML, html: Shallower learning curve than SGML
• RDF over XLink: ‘SemanOc’ message: world was ready?
• Social media: Simple tools to express basic human urge?
Business models• 1960s -‐ 1980s: Publishing, including distribuOon, is in hands of publishers and socie+es, selling to libraries. DIALOG computers allow access to abstracts.
• 1990-‐2000: ArXiV, preprint servers: content direct to end-‐users.
• 2000 -‐ 2005: BioMed Central, Faculty 1000, PLoS, Crea+ve Commons -‐ development of ‘author-‐pays’, ‘peer-‐review arer’
• 2005 -‐ 2011: Content share/creaOon is ubiquitous. Open Data movement.
10
Business models• 1960s -‐ 1980s: Publishing, including distribuOon, is in hands of publishers and socie+es, selling to libraries. DIALOG computers allow access to abstracts.
• 1990-‐2000: ArXiV, preprint servers: content direct to end-‐users.
• 2000 -‐ 2005: BioMed Central, Faculty 1000, PLoS, Crea+ve Commons -‐ development of ‘author-‐pays’, ‘peer-‐review arer’
• 2005 -‐ 2011: Content share/creaOon is ubiquitous. Open Data movement.
10
What stuck, and why?
• Commercial business model engrained in budgeOng etc.
• SocieOes and ‘author-‐pays’ models also become publishers
• IndignaOon drives Open Access -‐ but also have a day job
Research Data• 1960s -‐ 1980s: Locally stored, except for CERN/DARPA
• 1990-‐2000: Collaboratories: CAST, UARC, Sloan DSS, DOE;Digital repositories: ADS, DBLP, JSTOR, Citeseer
• 2000 -‐ 2005: Workflows & Grids: Taverna, MyGrid, GriPhyn
• 2005 -‐ 2011: MyExperiment, Vistrails, Dataverse, Datacite, ‘The Data Journal’
11
Research Data• 1960s -‐ 1980s: Locally stored, except for CERN/DARPA
• 1990-‐2000: Collaboratories: CAST, UARC, Sloan DSS, DOE;Digital repositories: ADS, DBLP, JSTOR, Citeseer
• 2000 -‐ 2005: Workflows & Grids: Taverna, MyGrid, GriPhyn
• 2005 -‐ 2011: MyExperiment, Vistrails, Dataverse, Datacite, ‘The Data Journal’
11
What stuck, and why?
• Local data stores are centrally (and long-‐term) funded
• ADS/DBLP/JSTOR fulfill a need for domain-‐specific access, funded by ‘invisible’ sources
• Workflow tools not yet ubiquitous -‐ need not great enough?
A@ribu3on and credit
12
• 1960s -‐ 1980s: Impact factor
• 1990-‐2000: Citeseer, DBLP
• 2000 -‐ 2005: H-‐Index, Google Scholar
• 2005 -‐ 2011: Blogs, downloads, ‘Alt-‐metrics’
A@ribu3on and credit
12
• 1960s -‐ 1980s: Impact factor
• 1990-‐2000: Citeseer, DBLP
• 2000 -‐ 2005: H-‐Index, Google Scholar
• 2005 -‐ 2011: Blogs, downloads, ‘Alt-‐metrics’
What stuck, and why?
• Impact factor: direct connecOon to author’s fame
• Google Scholar: easy UI, ‘Open’ image
• All other metric measurements are not yet engrained in assessment tradiOon
Summary: some factors driving support
13
Summary: some factors driving support• Commercial support:
–Commercial publishing: great financial interest
–Word, PDF: investment to maintain format
13
Summary: some factors driving support• Commercial support:
–Commercial publishing: great financial interest
–Word, PDF: investment to maintain format
• Community support:
–LaTeX: Fierce community of adopters
–Open Access: Social indignaOon
13
Summary: some factors driving support• Commercial support:
–Commercial publishing: great financial interest
–Word, PDF: investment to maintain format
• Community support:
–LaTeX: Fierce community of adopters
–Open Access: Social indignaOon• Ease of use, domain relevance -‐ user friendliness:
–Google Scholar: model known, perceived objecOvity
–DBLP, ADS, JSToR: ‘invisible’ funding, domain-‐specificity
13
Summary: some factors driving support• Commercial support:
–Commercial publishing: great financial interest
–Word, PDF: investment to maintain format
• Community support:
–LaTeX: Fierce community of adopters
–Open Access: Social indignaOon• Ease of use, domain relevance -‐ user friendliness:
–Google Scholar: model known, perceived objecOvity
–DBLP, ADS, JSToR: ‘invisible’ funding, domain-‐specificity
• Academic credit depends on it:
–Impact factor
–Grant proposals -‐ complex, not logical, but life depends on it...13
Summary: some factors driving support• Commercial support:
–Commercial publishing: great financial interest
–Word, PDF: investment to maintain format
• Community support:
–LaTeX: Fierce community of adopters
–Open Access: Social indignaOon• Ease of use, domain relevance -‐ user friendliness:
–Google Scholar: model known, perceived objecOvity
–DBLP, ADS, JSToR: ‘invisible’ funding, domain-‐specificity
• Academic credit depends on it:
–Impact factor
–Grant proposals -‐ complex, not logical, but life depends on it...13
Exercise: Which of these could apply
to hypertext models?
A small history of innova3on in science publishing
14
A small history of innova3on in science publishing
14
1960s -‐ 1980s: Pre-‐Web
1990-‐2000:Web
2000 -‐ 2005: Seman+c Web
2005 -‐ 2011: Social Web
New FormatsMemex, Augment, Xanadu; Hypertext
Modular papers XML for modular textsSWAN, LiquidPub, Nanopublica3ons
Research DataLocally stored except for CERN/DARPA
Collaboratories: CAST, UARC, Sloan DSS, DOE
Workflows & Grids: Taverna, MyGrid, GriPhyn
MyExperiment,Dataverse, Datacite, ‘The Data Journal’
Tools and standards
LaTeX, SGML, htmlXML, SMIL, XLink, SVG, CSS
RDF; Annotea, Haystack, Seman3c Desktop
LOD, Provenance; Twi@er, Skype, Google Docs, Github
Business modelsPublishers and socie3es
ArXiV, preprint servers
BioMed Central, Faculty 1000, PLoS, Crea3ve Commons
ODF, ?
A@ribu3on and credit
Impact factor Citeseer H-‐IndexBlogs, downloads, ‘Alt-‐metrics’
A small history of innova3on in science publishing
14
1960s -‐ 1980s: Pre-‐Web
1990-‐2000:Web
2000 -‐ 2005: Seman+c Web
2005 -‐ 2011: Social Web
New FormatsMemex, Augment, Xanadu; Hypertext
Modular papers XML for modular textsSWAN, LiquidPub, Nanopublica3ons
Research DataLocally stored except for CERN/DARPA
Collaboratories: CAST, UARC, Sloan DSS, DOE
Workflows & Grids: Taverna, MyGrid, GriPhyn
MyExperiment,Dataverse, Datacite, ‘The Data Journal’
Tools and standards
LaTeX, SGML, htmlXML, SMIL, XLink, SVG, CSS
RDF; Annotea, Haystack, Seman3c Desktop
LOD, Provenance; Twi@er, Skype, Google Docs, Github
Business modelsPublishers and socie3es
ArXiV, preprint servers
BioMed Central, Faculty 1000, PLoS, Crea3ve Commons
ODF, ?
A@ribu3on and credit
Impact factor Citeseer H-‐IndexBlogs, downloads, ‘Alt-‐metrics’
A small history of innova3on in science publishing
14
1960s -‐ 1980s: Pre-‐Web
1990-‐2000:Web
2000 -‐ 2005: Seman+c Web
2005 -‐ 2011: Social Web
New FormatsMemex, Augment, Xanadu; Hypertext
Modular papers XML for modular textsSWAN, LiquidPub, Nanopublica3ons
Research DataLocally stored except for CERN/DARPA
Collaboratories: CAST, UARC, Sloan DSS, DOE
Workflows & Grids: Taverna, MyGrid, GriPhyn
MyExperiment,Dataverse, Datacite, ‘The Data Journal’
Tools and standards
LaTeX, SGML, htmlXML, SMIL, XLink, SVG, CSS
RDF; Annotea, Haystack, Seman3c Desktop
LOD, Provenance; Twi@er, Skype, Google Docs, Github
Business modelsPublishers and socie3es
ArXiV, preprint servers
BioMed Central, Faculty 1000, PLoS, Crea3ve Commons
ODF, ?
A@ribu3on and credit
Impact factor Citeseer H-‐IndexBlogs, downloads, ‘Alt-‐metrics’
A small history of innova3on in science publishing
14
1960s -‐ 1980s: Pre-‐Web
1990-‐2000:Web
2000 -‐ 2005: Seman+c Web
2005 -‐ 2011: Social Web
New FormatsMemex, Augment, Xanadu; Hypertext
Modular papers XML for modular textsSWAN, LiquidPub, Nanopublica3ons
Research DataLocally stored except for CERN/DARPA
Collaboratories: CAST, UARC, Sloan DSS, DOE
Workflows & Grids: Taverna, MyGrid, GriPhyn
MyExperiment,Dataverse, Datacite, ‘The Data Journal’
Tools and standards
LaTeX, SGML, htmlXML, SMIL, XLink, SVG, CSS
RDF; Annotea, Haystack, Seman3c Desktop
LOD, Provenance; Twi@er, Skype, Google Docs, Github
Business modelsPublishers and socie3es
ArXiV, preprint servers
BioMed Central, Faculty 1000, PLoS, Crea3ve Commons
ODF, ?
A@ribu3on and credit
Impact factor Citeseer H-‐IndexBlogs, downloads, ‘Alt-‐metrics’
A small history of innova3on in science publishing
14
1960s -‐ 1980s: Pre-‐Web
1990-‐2000:Web
2000 -‐ 2005: Seman+c Web
2005 -‐ 2011: Social Web
New FormatsMemex, Augment, Xanadu; Hypertext
Modular papers XML for modular textsSWAN, LiquidPub, Nanopublica3ons
Research DataLocally stored except for CERN/DARPA
Collaboratories: CAST, UARC, Sloan DSS, DOE
Workflows & Grids: Taverna, MyGrid, GriPhyn
MyExperiment,Dataverse, Datacite, ‘The Data Journal’
Tools and standards
LaTeX, SGML, htmlXML, SMIL, XLink, SVG, CSS
RDF; Annotea, Haystack, Seman3c Desktop
LOD, Provenance; Twi@er, Skype, Google Docs, Github
Business modelsPublishers and socie3es
ArXiV, preprint servers
BioMed Central, Faculty 1000, PLoS, Crea3ve Commons
ODF, ?
A@ribu3on and credit
Impact factor Citeseer H-‐IndexBlogs, downloads, ‘Alt-‐metrics’
A small history of innova3on in science publishing
14
1960s -‐ 1980s: Pre-‐Web
1990-‐2000:Web
2000 -‐ 2005: Seman+c Web
2005 -‐ 2011: Social Web
New FormatsMemex, Augment, Xanadu; Hypertext
Modular papers XML for modular textsSWAN, LiquidPub, Nanopublica3ons
Research DataLocally stored except for CERN/DARPA
Collaboratories: CAST, UARC, Sloan DSS, DOE
Workflows & Grids: Taverna, MyGrid, GriPhyn
MyExperiment,Dataverse, Datacite, ‘The Data Journal’
Tools and standards
LaTeX, SGML, htmlXML, SMIL, XLink, SVG, CSS
RDF; Annotea, Haystack, Seman3c Desktop
LOD, Provenance; Twi@er, Skype, Google Docs, Github
Business modelsPublishers and socie3es
ArXiV, preprint servers
BioMed Central, Faculty 1000, PLoS, Crea3ve Commons
ODF, ?
A@ribu3on and credit
Impact factor Citeseer H-‐IndexBlogs, downloads, ‘Alt-‐metrics’