i pres 2014 slides

DANS is an institute of KNAW and NWO

Data Archiving and Networked Services

Data Archiving and Networked Services

A Perspective on Archiving the Scholarly Web Herbert van de Sompel, LANL Team Leader, Prototyping/ DANS Visiting Fellow http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0715-6126/ Andrew Treloar, ANDS Director of Technology/ DANS Visiting Fellow http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8911-3081/

Overview

•  Some context •  Thinking about the future •  Changes in research process and outputs •  Implications for archives •  Conclusions

October 8, 2014 CC-‐BY-‐SA, @hvdsomp and @atreloar

Republic of Letters


System of Journals


System of Journals •  Rosendaal and Geurts (1997) •  Registration

–  submission of manuscript •  Certification

–  peer-review (pre-publication) –  commentary (post-publication)

•  Awareness –  discovery services

•  Archiving –  libraries (print) –  publishers (electronic) –  special purpose organisations (e.g. Portico)


Web of Objects

October 8, 2014 h?p://www.researchobject.org/pages/wp-‐content/uploads/2014/08/research-‐objects-‐illustraHon.png

Pointers to the future

“the future is already here – it’s just not very evenly distributed”

William Gibson, NPR interview So, let’s look at the most evenly distributed example we have - lifesciences


Registration: Protein Data Bank


Registration: Wiki Pathways


Registration: NeuroLex


Certification: PubMed Commons


Awareness: myExperiment


Awareness: OpenMalaria


Archiving: CSIRO


Archiving: GenBank


Caveats

•  Different disciplines have different cultures and practices

•  Lifesciences even differ somewhat from other sciences

•  But they are tackling some of the challenges now that other disciplines will face soon (or are grappling with now): –  increased data volumes and complexity –  greater reliance on in-silico science –  need to support greater transparency and collaboration


Changes in research process


Changes in research objects


October 8, 2014

Publishing, pre-web

CC-‐BY-‐SA, @hvdsomp

October 8, 2014

Publishing, web

CC-‐BY-‐SA, @hvdsomp

Web platforms for scholarship

•  Common web platforms are increasingly used for scholarship –  Wikis, GitHub, DropBox, Twitter, Wordpress, etc.

•  Many of these have desirable characteristics: –  Versioning –  Timestamping –  Social embedding

•  They record rather than archive •  But they are capturing critical elements of the

scholarly process


Github terms of service


•  GitHub reserves the right at any time and from time to time to modify or discontinue, temporarily or permanently, the Service (or any part thereof) with or without notice. (E.1)

•  GitHub does not warrant that (i) the service will meet your specific requirements, (ii) the service will be uninterrupted, timely, secure, or error-free, (iii) the results that may be obtained from the use of the service will be accurate or reliable, (iv) the quality of any products, services, information, or other material purchased or obtained by you through the service will meet your expectations, and (v) any errors in the Service will be corrected. (D.4)

Recording vs. Archiving Recording Archiving

Short-‐term Longer-‐term

No guarantees provided A?empt to provide guarantees

Write many/Read many Write Once/Read Many

Scholarly process Scholarly record


Herbert Van de Sompel, Andrew Treloar OCLC DANS Workshop, Amsterdam, Netherlands, June 10 2014

Web of Objects – Core Observations

•  The research process, not just its outcome, is becoming visible … on the web

•  Massive extension of the scholarly record with an enormous variety of novel objects

•  The objects are heterogeneous, dynamic, compound, inter-related and distributed across the web

•  The objects are often hosted on common web platforms that are not dedicated to scholarship

The archival paradigm [and infrastructure] must take these characteristics into account

Transfer from recording to archive

•  What: Boundaries of archived object(s) •  When: Triggers for archival transition •  Who: Archivist? Researcher? Software? •  Why: Motivations to archive


Further work

•  Exploring the implications of this approach, and answers to some of these questions, together with the archival team at DANS (and the institutions/researchers with whom they engage)


Conclusion

•  Nature of research process is changing •  Kinds of research objects (inputs and outputs)

are changing •  Need the ability to record and archive processes

as well as outputs •  Archives need to respond to these changes
