Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
Yes, more importantly, at any arbitrary level they are needed by their creators.
eg. HTTP URI (with fragments) to any thing.
Vincent
@Vinnl_gitlab
The problem with metadata generation, as I understand it, is that it's usually something that an article's authors are wholly uninterested in, and thus requires additional labour. The problem of missing fine-grained metadata is probably mostly an incentive problem, I'd guess? (Though it's not exactly clear to me what incentives lead to the current addition of metadata - probably funder requirements?)
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
I don't know exactly but I would assume that the document formats significantly influenced that.
When authors are forced to use LaTeX/Word or whatever.. it is not like they can easily or at all assign a global identifier (which can eventually resolve) for arbitrary things.
Vincent
@Vinnl_gitlab
As I understand it, authors are mostly limited in the formats they can use by the upload systems. Then publishers pay people to transfer that into JATS-XML so they can add proper metadata and such. I don't think authors would ever be prepared to directly submit JATS-XML (I wouldn't).
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
Right, so why are authors being limited or expected to use those systems in order to participate in knowledge exchange to begin with?
Vincent
@Vinnl_gitlab
In the thread you linked, Stefan does ask an important question: how to proceed? And the answer to that question needs to involve the publishers, unfortunately - at least for projects like mine to be able to move away from DOIs. And a replacement for ORCID has its own additional challenges, I'm afraid
You mean: why can't they just email their manuscripts in a format they prefer?
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
I don't particularly care about third-party publishers or their businesses. They can still participate if they want to. The problem is the ecosystem's demand on going through those publishers.
No, that's not what I mean.. but I don't think I understand your question.
Vincent
@Vinnl_gitlab
I don't care about the publishers (and especially their business either), but I care about the content the ecosystem produces that they currently shove through those publishers
Hmm, my question was because I didn't understand yours :P
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
ORCID doesn't need to be replaced. WebID (at least the notion of it) for instance needs to be welcomed.
Vincent
@Vinnl_gitlab

Right, so why are authors being limited or expected to use those systems in order to participate in knowledge exchange to begin with?

You mean why do authors have to upload their manuscripts to easychair or whatever?

Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
Well, the publishers are offering archaic systems. I see no reason for any person to be forced into using them.
Vincent
@Vinnl_gitlab
Well... I understand why people are forced to use them - but I think you mean that it'd be better if they weren't, with which I agree. (That's the entire point of my project, in fact.)
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
Yes, easychair.. or instance. But more generally: a conference/journal requires authors to do whatever the publisher demands eg. use LaTeX, wave their copyrights or pay for Gold Access for horrific output.
Will your system let me use my WebID or acknowledge peer-reviewed work on my personal website?
Vincent
@Vinnl_gitlab
It might lead to that being possible in the long term
Once researchers are no longer forced to submit to the legacy publishers
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
@Vinnl_gitlab Check out https://linkedresearch.org/cloud .. where anyone can announce a unit of scholarly communication that's on the Web to its Inbox.
csarven @csarven still needs to improve the graph view :S
Vincent
@Vinnl_gitlab
Nice

I like

We can talk about federation and distribution when we get there. If you have ideas on how to "decentralise" and do all this better, voice yourself and roll up your sleeves.

That's my approach too

Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
That was in context of the notifications and that they are hosted at linkedresearch.org . It can be copied/distributed of course but discover changes. In any case, the system still accepts any HTTP URI-based activity out there. We can add more data shapes as needed.
Vincent
@Vinnl_gitlab
Yes, I primarily like that it's a clear long-term goal, but that you're making clear steps towards that goal even if perfection cannot be achieved immediately
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
I hope that whatever solution comes up later on, it'll be an incremental update.
One thing that we can do is to require an archive snapshot of the subject/object/target that's mentioned in the notification, as well as creating a archive snapshots of the notifications.
May have already discussed that in the chat.. can't remember now.
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven

If I did it right, my thesis has 479 unique references. based on <cite><a>s.. not all <a>s. I don't distinguish between 'footnotes' and 'endnotes' or whatever. Hyperlinks all the way down :) That number might change a bit once I sweep through.
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven

@essepuntato Is cito:citesAsSourceDocument similar to prov:wasDerivedFrom?
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
Is there a hard distinction between cito:obtainsBackgroundFrom and cito:citesForInformation if you want to cite an entity (like a book) to mention core ideas relevant to the topic of discussion?
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven

@/all Published Linked Research on the Decentralised Web: https://csarven.ca/linked-research-decentralised-web . All feedback most welcome.
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
{
"cito:citesAsAuthority": 250
"cito:citesAsDataSource": 12
"cito:citesAsEvidence": 126
"cito:citesAsPotentialSolution": 3
"cito:citesAsRelated": 17
"cito:citesAsSourceDocument": 6
"cito:citesForInformation": 126
"cito:credits": 1
"cito:discusses": 84
"cito:extends": 1
"cito:hasReplyFrom": 1
"cito:includesQuotationFrom": 54
"cito:obtainsBackgroundFrom": 43
"cito:parodies": 1
"cito:replies": 1
"cito:repliesTo": 1
"cito:reviews": 1
"cito:usesConclusionsFrom": 20
"cito:usesMethodIn": 3
}
... if I did it right.
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
@essepuntato Is okay to use cito:cites to acknowledge people in an Acknowledgement section?
Julien Colomb
@jcolomb
hi folks. I am presently working on a project to create "SmartFigures", a .zip container for research figures and its metadata (in xml format, mainly authors, title, caption and links to data and other metadata), together with https://sourcedata.embo.org/. The idea is to make it portable since all is included in a single zip file (using the .dar format publishers are using). It was designed as a centralised system so far, and I am wondering how to make it decentralised/if we can make it decentralised (each person owning its own gallery, sharing some SmartFigures with the lab; and the lab being able to share it with a lab consortium, until it is published and shared with everyone). Anyone has time to discuss this, or point to similar projects maybe?
PS: https://linkedresearch.org/resources does not find anything
Mark Hughes (happybeing/theWebalyst)
@happybeing
@jcolomb sounds a bit like James Littlejohn's work on decentralised science. Maybe with a chat with him to see where that project is ATM https://github.com/aboynejames
Philip Durbin
@pdurbin
Sarven Capadisli
@csarven
@pdurbin There is a lot ot unpack in that thread. So, I don't know what's at the core.
Philip Durbin
@pdurbin
@csarven I agree and I was hoping you'd know. :)
Stian Soiland-Reyes
@stain
@jcolomb also check out what we have done with RO-Crate https://w3id.org/ro/crate/1.0, Research Objects works great with external resources as well by URL, or minId/ARK using Big Data Bagit (BDBag) https://github.com/fair-research/bdbag/
Philip Durbin
@pdurbin
@stain Thomas mentioned 1.0 is out. Congrats.
Stian Soiland-Reyes
@stain
Thanks. @pdurbin ! We'll work a bit on the Python implementation side here in BioHackathon, I'm going to trick @danbri to have a go.
http://gitter.im/linkedresearch/chat
gitter.im
crawl=CC-MAIN-2022-33
121185
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:PR7KMMKHC7O2XLIQPGNWFOYDTKNRHSFU
<urn:uuid:55d3c3d0-88bf-4d4c-91cd-a75dd692d7b2>
2022-08-15T12:49:59Z
3.231.241.30
text/html
sha1:LGD37IKU4BVNACWIVAUFR3FFSTHKSPKO
<urn:uuid:9d96bb03-241a-461c-bdb0-d0d5f24b297d>
http://gitter.im/linkedresearch/chat
response
<urn:uuid:44b9b34f-706d-4baa-8ba3-10adbb838924>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2022-33
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2022
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-76
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.4-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/