On 2016-05-10 08:39, Herbert Van de Sompel wrote:
Sarven,
I am a fan of your linked research work. But I think it's a bit unjust
to characterize D-Lib Magazine as fitting in the category "via paper and
desktop/print centric tools and formats."
D-Lib is, and has since its start in 1995, been an HTML-only journal
that has served the Digital Library community very well. Just recently,
I published a paper [1] in D-Lib in which the editors agreed to allow
me to diverge from their template in order to demonstrate the Robust
Links [2] approach to combat reference rot in scholarly communication.
Thank you Herbert.
I'm aware of D-Lib, and it is fantastic that they gave room to exemplify
your work to the greatest extent possible.
I was merely pointing at the workshop in particular because that's the
primary point of engagement with the community. Is it encouraging the
methods to share, reuse, reproduce that it stands behind? Oscar's second
email certainly comes across that way (and that's a lot more reassuring
then the first - at least to me).
There is much more to be said about encouraging and enabling the
community (which was discussed a number of times in these mailing lists
which I'm sure you well know). The point that tends to circle back
around is that, if you ask a researcher to submit in X, they will most
certainly submit in X. They will also pass that knowledge (the whole
process) to their colleagues. So, if we for instance ask researchers
coming into the field to embrace Webby submissions, we should be able to
phase out desktop/print mentality especially in Web Science.
None of this is to suggest that people should be using tools that they
don't want or can - needless to say, we need to be considerate about
accessibility - but rather taking measures to have some interoperability
between the research output, instead of sending it out to a black hole.
It is neither to suggest that print is bad. The fundamental difference
here is that, some of the formats and mediums that we ask the community
to expose their work on the Web (of all places) tend to be severely
limited right from the start. I think we can do better.
To take this workshop as an example, its submission requirements is no
different than the calls from events that work with the "publishers"
that are practically indifferent about any of this as long as it reduces
their costs and maximises profits on all fronts. My point: the fact that
D-Lib embraces the Web/HTML and friends is entirely hidden in this call.
What remains is the expertise that (new) researchers compile during the
process of submitting to this work - which tends to encourage the opposite.
Again, I'm merely suggesting that the voice of the community adapts to
the state of the art. Technology is not the core problem. We always have
social problems :)
Aside: it took "Linked Science" *4 years* to come around to this point.
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Apr/0291.html
https://twitter.com/LinkedScience/status/729978893160026113
What changed? Absolutely nothing on the technology end since everything
was there right from the beginning - I've even demonstrated that at the
time just to make the obvious point (via which is now known as
https://dokie.li/ ). As far as I can see, the essential change appears
to be on the social end.
We had tried to achieve the same with a paper about reference rot in
PLOS ONE [3] but our request was declined.
I was introduced to it by Shawn Jones at WWW2016: Persistent URIs Must
Be Used To Be Persistent.
While I agree that D-Lib does not represent an incarnation of your
intended paradigm shift, I really don't think they are the enemy either.
Pardon me but I had no intention or need to mark anyone as an an enemy
:) Focus is to encourage/enable researchers, organizers, institutions to
shift while trying to keep it within reach by pinging the folks in Web
Science, not all sciences.
This is especially why "Linked Research" is a proposed initiative to
move towards. It is all open for discussion, and there are number of
ways to engage. https://linkedresearch.org/ . Never asked or demanded
must haves on the technologies outside of what's "Webby". Not "selling"
a tool here. :)
BTW: Maybe you could consider supporting Robust Links in your work. It's
all about long-term access and integrity of the web-based scholarly
record and hence should be of interest to you.
Thanks for bring this up. I think we already cover those use cases in
dokieli, but added
https://github.com/linkeddata/dokieli/issues/41#issuecomment-218147564
to keep it in the radar in any case. I will take a closer look.
-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i
Cheers
Herbert
[1] Van de Sompel, H., and Nelson, M.L. (2015) Reminiscing About 15
Years of Interoperability Efforts. D-Lib Magazine, 21(11/12).
DOI:10.1045/november2015-vandesompel,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1045/november2015-vandesompel
[2] Robust Links spec. http://robustlinks.mementoweb.org/spec/
[3] Klein, M., Van de Sompel, H., Sanderson, R., Shankar, H.,
Balakireva, L., Zhou K., and Tobin, R. (2014) Scholarly Context Not
Found: One in Five Articles Suffers from Reference Rot. PLoS ONE, 9(12):
e115253. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0115253 ;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115253
