Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
En vedette
En vedette (20)
Similaire à LiquidPub Snow Workshop 2010 Agenda
Similaire à LiquidPub Snow Workshop 2010 Agenda (20)
Plus de Aliaksandr Birukou
Plus de Aliaksandr Birukou (16)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
LiquidPub Snow Workshop 2010 Agenda
- 2. Welcome to LiquidPub Snow Workshop 2010 ! Special thanks to prof. Yi-Cheng Zhang and the Fribourg team
- 4. Workshop agenda - 1
- 12. Something about LiquidPub project University of Trento, Italy Spanish National Research Council, Spain Springer, Germany Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France University of Fribourg, Switzerland
- 18. A large number of technologies are out there
- 21. Liquid journals Concepts and Motivation
- 26. Liquid journals: Proposal ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
- 27. Example: LJ on Peer review ICSOC/ServiceWave2009 Editor Creation
- 28. Example: LJ on Peer review ICSOC/ServiceWave2009 Editor Evolution
- 29. Example: LJ on Peer review ICSOC/ServiceWave2009 Editor Evolution
- 30. Example: LJ on Peer review ICSOC/ServiceWave2009 Editor Readers Feedback Tagging Sharing Comsumption
- 32. Reputation in liquid journals
- 33. Liquid Books (LB) Concepts and Motivation
- 41. Issue #2: Notification of Changes A1 A2 A3 AB Change 11 Change 12 Change 13 notification notification notification notification notification Fabio Fabio Stefan Paco
- 46. Issue #7: Business aspects
- 55. Liquid Conferences Concepts and Motivation
- 56. Scientific Knowledge Objects Overview
- 59. Structural Dimension Liquidpub Snow Workshop 2010 Presentation Serialization Semantic File Data pointed by a URL Conceptual and relation information Serialization of data and metadata Url1 Url2 Url3 Url4 URL2,URL1,URL3, URL4, Set of URLs Second and following pages of content Title, Authors and Abstract Main content Comment URL0 SURL1 Metadata Node containing title, authors, abstract File Node containing main content Points SURL2 Metadata Node containing the note “This is good” File fragment selecting the last part of the content Metadata Node containing title, authors and abstract for the whole document Content nodes representing each of the pages of the document Semantic Annotation “comment” with a value “This is good” SURL4 b “ Part of” Semantic Annotation a File fragment selecting the part to which apply the annotation Title of the document (metadata) Data of nodes 1, 0 and 2 Data of node 4 and link to node 5 SURL0 Use title from SKO Use full data from these nodes Use this node as a reference Ordering and use of the nodes of a Document Tree LURL0 Serialization node Table of Contents Full-text Document Bibliography LURL Aggregation order of Serialization Nodes Visualization and style information Document, Style1 Document, Style2 Style modification for the word “Objects” LURL0 PURL1 Presentation Metadata containing a style change for the word “Objects” Serialization fragment selecting the word “Objects” from the title Points PURL2 Serialization Node Presentation Metadata containing style Objects This amounts to a set of URLs with some parameters for "sharp sign" fragments. The URLs include not only all the resources belonging to this document but also the URLs belonging to the documents pointed to (or referenced) from this one. Finally, one or more URLs are defined for aggregations of URL (for example, a single global URL for the whole document). This amounts to a set of URLs with some parameters for "sharp sign" fragments. The URLs include not only all the resources belonging to this document but also the URLs belonging to the documents pointed to (or referenced) from this one. Finally, one or more URLs are defined for aggregations of URL (for example, a single global URL for the whole document). This amounts to a set of URLs with some parameters for "sharp sign" fragments. The URLs include not only all the resources belonging to this document but also the URLs belonging to the documents pointed to (or referenced) from this one. Finally, one or more URLs are defined for aggregations of URL (for example, a single global URL for the whole document). the documents pointed to (or referenced) from this one. Finally, one or more URLs are defined for aggregations of URL (for example, a single global URL for the Scientific Knowledge Objects Fausto Giunchiglia, Ronald Chenu-Abente Dipartimento di Ingegneria e Scienza dell'Informazione Via Sommarive, 14 I-38123 POVO {fausto, chenu }@disi.unitn.it Abstract: Dsdkasd sdldsfjsdl fsdfkljsdl dfjdfj fdjkf, daskds, sdjsdk, asdskdsdkjk. Dasdkjlask dasd dhtr;jvnmcv fdfjdri fdfjkdf dkfjdir Keywords: dasdas, gfgdfg, gertsdf, vcxfgsdr This part is good! 0 1 2 3 This amounts to a set of URLs with some parameters for "sharp sign" fragments. The URLs include not only all the resources belonging to this document but also the URLs belonging to the documents pointed to (or referenced) from this one. Finally, one or more URLs are defined for aggregations of URL (for example, a single global URL for the whole document). Semantic Tree Example the documents pointed to (or referenced) from this one. Finally, one or more URLs are defined for aggregations of URL (for example, a single global URL for the whole document). This amounts to a set {LINK TO URL6] 4 3 1 2 5 Bibliography [1] ASHRI, R., RAMCHURN, S. D., SABATER, J., LUCK, M., AND JENNINGS, N. R. Trust evaluation through relationship analysis. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS ’05) (New York, NY, USA, 2005), ACM, pp. 1005–1011. [2] CASATI, F., GIUNCHIGLIA, F., AND MARCHESE, M. Publish and perish: why the current publication and review model is killing research and wasting your money. ACM Ubiquity (11 2006). [3] CASATI, R., ORIGGI, G., SCHNEIDER, L., AND VELTRI, G. Liquidpub position paper, October 2008. [4] DE WAARD, A. The pragmatic research article. In 2nd International Pragmatic Web Con- ference, Tilburg, 22nd-23rd Oct. 2007 (2008). [5] FABIO CASATI, FAUSTO GIUNCHIGLIA, M. M. Liquid publications: Sci- entific publications meet the web. Tech Report from Unitn, found at http://eprints.biblio.unitn.it/archive/00001313/01/073.pdf, 09 2007. [6] KIRCZ, J. G. Rhetorical structure of scientific articles: (1991), 354–372. This amounts to a set of URLs with some parameters for "sharp sign" fragments. The URLs include not only all the resources belonging to this document but also the URLs belonging to the documents pointed to (or referenced) from this one. Finally, one or more URLs are defined for aggregations of URL (for example, a single global URL for the whole document). the documents pointed to (or referenced) from this one. Finally, one or more URLs are defined for aggregations of URL (for example, a single global URL for the whole document). Scientific Knowledge Objects Fausto Giunchiglia, Ronald Chenu-Abente Dipartimento di Ingegneria e Scienza dell'Informazione Via Sommarive, 14 I-38123 POVO {fausto, chenu }@disi.unitn.it Abstract: Dsdkasd sdldsfjsdl fsdfkljsdl dfjdfj fdjkf, daskds, sdjsdk, asdskdsdkjk. Dasdkjlask dasd dhtr;jvnmcv fdfjdri fdfjkdf dkfjdir Keywords: dasdas, gfgdfg, gertsdf, vcxfgsdr This part is good! Table of Contents 1 Introductory Denitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.1 Considerations on Content and Data . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.2 Metadata, Attributes and Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Relation Attributes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Metadata-linked Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2 The Data Representation Level . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.1 SKOnode Denition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.2 SKOnode Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 The Composes" relation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 10 Representing a Complex Artifact as a SKOnode DAG. . . 11 A Global View of the System's SKOnode Graph. . . . . . . . 13 3 The Knowledge Representational Level . . . . . . . . . . .13 3.1 SKO Denition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.2 SKO Semantic Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 3.3 SKO Serialization Structure . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 15 3.4 SKOnodes vs SKOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 16 3.5 Knowledge Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 17 The s compiled" relation. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 18 A Global view on the System's SKO Graph. .. . . . . . . . . . 19 1 Table of Contents 2 Full-text Doc. 3 Bib. Scientific Knowledge Objects Fausto Giunchiglia, Ronald Chenu-Abente Dipartimento di Ingegneria e Scienza dell'Informazione Via Sommarive, 14 I-38123 POVO {fausto, chenu }@disi.unitn.it Abstract: Dsdkasd sdldsfjsdl fsdfkljsdl dfjdfj fdjkf, daskds, sdjsdk, asdskdsdkjk. Dasdkjlask dasd dhtr;jvnmcv fdfjdri fdfjkdf dkfjdir Keywords: dasdas, gfgdfg, gertsdf, vcxfgsdr This part is good! Scientific Knowledge Objects Fausto Giunchiglia, Ronald Chenu-Abente Dipartimento di Ingegneria e Scienza dell'Informazione Via Sommarive, 14 I-38123 POVO {fausto, chenu }@disi.unitn.it Abstract: Dsdkasd sdldsfjsdl fsdfkljsdl dfjdfj fdjkf, daskds, sdjsdk, asdskdsdkjk. Dasdkjlask dasd dhtr;jvnmcv fdfjdri fdfjkdf dkfjdir Keywords: dasdas, gfgdfg, gertsdf, vcxfgsdr This part is good! This amounts to a set of URLs with some parameters for "sharp sign" fragments. The URLs include not only all the resources belonging to this document but also the URLs belonging to the documents pointed to (or referenced) from this one.
- 62. Charters
- 64. What we need Management system Specification of research related process models User interface to interact with the system
- 65. What we currently have Management system Specification of research related process models User interface to interact with the system ConfMaster EasyChair PRE DEFINED PRE DEFINED Little flexibility, hard to change
- 66. What we want Process model specification tool User interface information Automated generation
- 68. The thechnology Islander specification language and tool Process model XML Widgets DB Visual components Mapping and visual components functionality
- 69. What an LP Management System should look like...
- 70. Exploring ranking in other contexts
- 71. Co-determination algorithms: the task How to best aggregate the ratings? (To minimize the errors or to best reproduce the “true“ ranking.)
- 73. Co-determination algorithms: performance metrics
- 74. Co-determination algorithms: artificial datasets
- 75. Co-determination algorithms: real datasets
- 80. Thanks for your attention (final slide)
Notes de l'éditeur
- Nevertheless, formal peer review as we understand it today still dates back to at least the 18th century. The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London—founded in 1665, the same year as the Journaldes sc¸avans—was selective in its choice of manuscripts, but this was an informal process in the handsof the editor [137]. The Royal Society of Edinburgh’s Medical Essays and Observations, first publishedin 1731, was probably the first to introduce peer review as we would recognise it today, with submittedmanuscripts being distributed by the editor to appropriate specialists for assessment [137, 6];
- Feedback: do not bury comments, make them visible to the authors Diversity: Jack Sandweiss, Yale. http://prl.aps.org/edannounce/PhysRevLett.102.190001
- Liquid journals belong to a research line, in which we are trying to understand the challenges and opportunities the Web has made possible in terms of knowledge dissemination and evaluation.
- To understand these possibilities and opportunities we need to look into the current dissemination model, and the reasons behind its structure. But what’s under the hood.. If we look at the current model we see that most of the features are there because of historical reasons.. ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
- The Web has changed the way we get, share, produce and consume scientific content. Publishing is almost free. We have now new formats and new types of scientific content: We have blogs, papers, datasets.. provided by a variety of services on the Internet. In traditional and non traditional sources. The problem is now the attention [Huberman] ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
- T The problem has become, for the readers. How do I get interesting an relevant content? For the authors, how do I make my work visible? The problem is now the attention [Huberman] ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
- Original reasons for journal model now gone. Scarce resource now is attention Liquid journals: back to the roots – how to provide interesting content Separate the production/publication of content from the selection and grouping A journal is a view over scientific content avail on the web (free or not) The journal is defined as a query over the Web The editor specifies the type and properties of the content What behaviours are good for science? ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
- Behaviors that are good for science, and in particular for the problem of information overhead Consider the new spectrum of “scientific contributions”, not just paper. And let users discover and get interesting problem. Focusing their attention to the things they care about. Advances in social Web, social tagging, New wasy of publishing, real time web, exploring real time dissemination +How we can bring interesting and relevant content to scientist? And therefore to understand and define the dimensions of what is scientific content How we can enable behaviours that are good for science? -enable early sharing -having people giving feedback How can the new publication mechanism benefit from the Web? What are the processes to follow How can we enable new possibilities?! We have defined an early model based on some initial research ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
- I cannot go through all de details, so I thought it would be better to see an example, covering different aspects of the research Behaviors that are good for science, and in particular for the problem of information overhead +How we can bring interesting and relevant content to scientist? And therefore to understand and define the dimensions of what is scientific content How we can enable behaviours that are good for science? -enable early sharing -having people giving feedback How can the new publication mechanism benefit from the Web? What are the processes to follow How can we enable new possibilities?! We have defined an early model based on some initial research ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
- Behaviors that are good for science, and in particular for the problem of information overhead +How we can bring interesting and relevant content to scientist? And therefore to understand and define the dimensions of what is scientific content How we can enable behaviours that are good for science? -enable early sharing -having people giving feedback How can the new publication mechanism benefit from the Web? What are the processes to follow How can we enable new possibilities?! We have defined an early model based on some initial research ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
- Behaviors that are good for science, and in particular for the problem of information overhead +How we can bring interesting and relevant content to scientist? And therefore to understand and define the dimensions of what is scientific content How we can enable behaviours that are good for science? -enable early sharing -having people giving feedback How can the new publication mechanism benefit from the Web? What are the processes to follow How can we enable new possibilities?! We have defined an early model based on some initial research ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
- Behaviors that are good for science, and in particular for the problem of information overhead +How we can bring interesting and relevant content to scientist? And therefore to understand and define the dimensions of what is scientific content How we can enable behaviours that are good for science? -enable early sharing -having people giving feedback How can the new publication mechanism benefit from the Web? What are the processes to follow How can we enable new possibilities?! We have defined an early model based on some initial research ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
- As soon as the contribution becomes relevant to you.. ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
- Some scenarios are more developed (specially the first one) than others. So, we would probably spend more time on them.
- Fabio, Paco, Stefan want to do a LB togheter (e.g. “ Smart Web 2.0 applications” ) Each professor wants to obtain tailored and packaged teaching material for the class. They feel that by sharing their books/lecture notes can only get better each one of them has a different area of expertise they will put together their competences and materials, that already have or that are writing, to "compose" the LB. The three authors have many overlapping competences, although each of them has a field in which he is stronger. They all teach classes related to this topic, with different Teaching material they have includes slides, lecture notes, exercises, reference literature, etc.). --------------------------- It is unrealistic to assume that an author can just take somebody else's content and put it into their book without any change. Some, at least minimal, changes are always needed (references, terminology)
- In this first scenario we have a small set of authors, not so much content, authors just started the LB, and we suppose they use whatever system they prefer to share content and collaborate: svn-like, launchpad, etc. Moreover we consider for simplicity, that the final output is just a pdf with a companion web site)
- have some guarantee that "their" content will be used appropriately. N o one want "to loose control" on their content (does everybody need to agree on all editions that anybody publishes?). If Stefan changes Paco content (given that Stefan is allowed to do that) to adapt that to his class, what if Paco does not like that content and does not approve that change?
- Let us imagine that Fabio has written a document A, then Stefan takes this doc and modifies it (doc A2), then Paco takes this content A2 and modify it again (A3). Should the authors be notified of this changes? Probably yes. Then if Fabio takes his content A and modify it, creating content AB should Paco and Stefan be notified that the seed document has been modified?
- Approval policies : once somebody reuses my content, do I require my approval on the final version to see that my content has been used appropriately and interpreted correctly? - Policies to opt out : if I do not want to be part of this team anymore, and I want to opt out, what happens to my content? I probably cannot just delete my content, also because other authors have already taken that and modified it and included it in their books.
- Once Stefan has taken some content from Paco's and Fabio's one, he will have edited that, changed/added something and then arranged the new content in a new book tailored for his class of "Web 2.0 applications". Now the problem is: who is the author of the book? and, how to decide this? It is clear that Stefan did the main work, but he took content that Fabio and Paco have written. Possible solutions could be: - Stefan is listed as main author (a sort of editor), and Fabio and Paco are listed as contributors (but on the main cover); - The three authors are listed simply "as authors", without any distinction; - Stefan is listed as the only author, but inside the book, for each section there is the indication of who wrote/inspired/initiate the section itself. - There is authorship with the description of what each contributed, what has been reused, extent of changes, etc.... -...
- There are lots of platforms that should support the collaborative writing: svn, gdocs, wiki, etc. However each one of that lacks some support for different tasks. Some platforms, like gdocs, are in principle very simple to use, while lacking lots of features (like ...), some others are more complete, but sometime require a learning effort that discourage the user to deal with that. Also: how much can the IT do for us?
- ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
- The Web has changed the way we get, share, produce and consume scientific content. We have now new formats and new types of scientific content: We have blogs, papers, datasets.. provided by a variety of services on the Internet. Publishing is almost free. In traditional and non traditional sources. The problem has become, for the readers. How do I get interesting an relevant content? For the authors, how do I make my work visible? The problem is now the attention [Huberman] ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
- New content, when the idea is to bring interesting collections to users. ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
- ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
- ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
- ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
- ICSOC/ServiceWave2009
- ICSOC/ServiceWave2009