Cadmore media player playing video Persistent Identifiers – not just a terminal
Video Player
Accessibility
Using forms mode, you can utilize keyboard shortcuts to make usability more efficient.
Space bar will play and pause the video. Pressing escape will close all displays and pressing it again will jump to the end of the player.
You can press A to open the Keyboard Shortcut Dialog which also provides an audio description of the player and all of its features.
Language
1x
Play Speed
Adjust Volume
Transcript
Search
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Re-center
Segments
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Name:
Persistent Identifiers – not just a terminal
Description:
Persistent Identifiers – not just a terminal
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/be4a7f5d-a18e-4f39-a8ee-9655f7fd54c4/videoscrubberimages/Scrubber_1.jpg
Duration:
T00H32M33S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/be4a7f5d-a18e-4f39-a8ee-9655f7fd54c4
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/be4a7f5d-a18e-4f39-a8ee-9655f7fd54c4/Persistent Identifiers %e2%80%93 not just a terminal.mp4?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=yEMRQxhhRZfPDPmGW4Bd6TbFAh8E7JznH7aVFtVBjwA%3D&st=2024-12-26T11%3A52%3A51Z&se=2024-12-26T13%3A57%3A51Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2024-03-06T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
All right. That was really fantastic. And exciting. And I am the moderator for this session. But I think mostly I would like to sit back and let other people do the questioning. There were several there was a nice, lively dialogue in the chat during the session about being scooped.
I don't know if the speakers want to talk about that. The concern was if you post your idea or your project. And what you're doing. And people could see what you're doing and scoop you and do something similar faster. So maybe that would be a good topic to talk about. And there are some other things that came up, but honestly, I would love if people would just go ahead and unmute themselves and ask the questions or if the speakers want to just expand on what they just talked about in the recording, that's fine too.
So with that, I'm going to shoot myself for a moment and see where it goes. You mentioned scooping. We can get kind elaborate a little bit on that. I mean, both Tim and I can responded to the question in the chat, I think about the same, same time. But so Tim also kind of feel free to, to jump in.
But if you're scared of kind of getting you kind of work scoop don't want to share your data, don't even want to share your research problem or hypothesis because someone else will see. That's that's what you're working on. You can't hold it back. So yeah, no one's kind of forcing you to kind of like publish kind of as, as you go if, if it's OK. I've got to this stage in my project.
Now I've got the findings I need. I can go out and publish those days kind of four or five parts of the chain, kind of all in one go. I mean, it's not the kind of like most it's not the most ideal use case or not to person. It's still kind of driven by those kind of like those old incentives or so I'd say our current incentives that we, that we've got around, Yeah.
Kind of publishing and getting the impact that you need from your, from your, your journal article. So kind of yeah, the kind of sort of culture kind of sharing and perhaps putting something out there for, for someone else to kind of pick up and run with and work on. That's not there kind of right now in a lot of kind of research groups. So I time will tell on that one. But in the meantime, it's basically yeah, I mean, if you're scared of scooping, don't, don't actually need to publish as you go, although yeah, kind of.
I think the kind of strength of octopus is putting your kind of early stage stuff out there and seeing what kind of like highly skilled data analysts do with this data set. What could other people do with this kind of problem area or kind of yeah, kind of my hypothesis. So yeah, it's there for kind of other people to create their own chains off your work as well. So I think just to I suppose, reiterate that the thing that octopus does slightly differently is that it gives you the choice between either publishing it as you go very early on or publishing it.
Once your project is more mature and you've got more out there. And you can demonstrate some sort of later stages of the research process, I suppose, as well. You're not particularly forced into either one with octopus. So say no hands up or unmute mix. I'm going to ask a follow up question to that related to. Sort of the policy around this. How do you envision people getting into octopus in the first place and under what situation would someone think, oh, yes, I'm going to go start a project in octopus and track it?
Is it going to be required for grants or by institutions? How do people start on this? Is it always just individual choice? So currently. Yes so we're not we're not in a policy environment right now where outsources is kind of being mandated by any funder what we are. So octopus is funded by the kind of main funding body in the UK, UK research and innovation, who are the umbrella body for our research councils.
And so it's sort of my kind of government research funding. We're funded out of their culture change programme, so they've got on this space, hence kind of funding projects like octopus. They run an exercise in the UK for the research excellence framework, which is a kind of big exercise, looking at kind of the sort of impact of the grants that they've given out and kind of where the impact of research across the country, what as the people that kind of look after octopus, we would like to be lobbying to get into kind of that framework and say, OK, can octopus outputs please be counted in that framework?
So yeah, kind of and kind of right now that the next ref that's not set up. But yeah, it would take a fairly radical change I think to stuff like that. It's in there, but we can try. So we have to rely on other methods now because it isn't a. Is choice. It's not incentivized by kind of the funders.
So mainly I think kind of focusing on the kind of sort of potential for collaboration and kind of working with other researchers seeing what, you know, what you can get out of making your research visible kind of at the early stages, also focusing on the benefits of kind of open research, open science, really engaging with the kind of research communities where reproducibility is important because just like is kind of designed to kind of solve a lot of the problems that they're trying to they're trying to tackle.
We've also got some ideas around engaging funders to perhaps use octopus to identify research projects that they might want to fund in the future. So we have a plan to implement what we're calling currently a gold flag. We kind of have red flags for kind of moderation purposes. But yeah, the gold flag would be I'm interested in, in, in this, in perhaps funding this type of idea.
It doesn't necessarily have to be kind of big sort of funding councils. It could be kind of smaller amounts of money as well. So yeah, private individuals. So yeah, kind of we're looking at aspects like that to kind of incentivize folks because yeah, we're not, we're not, we're not tapped into the publishing kind of incentives that everyone's kind of working towards at the moment, although we are working with some kind of more open kind of journals to use octopus outfits as submissions as well.
So that's something that we are also looking into because yeah, octopus doesn't replace the journal, it's there with the facts, the journals there to kind of still provide that kind of narrative and kind of highlight and kind of tell that story. So yeah, there's a number of things there. So yeah, kind of, yeah, we're, we're trying to encourage people to kind of make the choice rather than the, the kind of sort of systems incentives that the competition's got in their favor.
So there have been more questions coming in the chat. I don't know if Debbie, do you want to unmute and ask them yourself or do you want me to read them? Or the speakers just could read them? Oh, good. I can ask. My first one is I really am fascinated by the idea of octopus and it's a UK funded thing at the moment.
I understand that. What if I'm a researcher who publishes for a governmental institution? United states? Brazilian nigerian? Am I welcome on octopus? Are there monetary concerns there? No, you're most definitely welcome. Every researcher in the world that wants to use octopus is welcome to publish on it in terms of our.
Kind of growth and targets. We do have some kind of UK specific numbers that are funding ANSI wants to hit. We've also got global numbers which are way higher than the UK ones. So yeah, I assumed that. But you haven't said it. Sorry I should have. But sir, that was me giving you an opportunity.
And now I have my real question. In a previous session, we talked about I am going to the terminal stage here. I have just written a journal article. I'm a researcher. I have an article. I assume a raid should be attached to that journal article somehow. Is it an article?
Bit of metadata? Is it attached to the people? Is it attached to the funding? Where? inside my journal article. Would you expect me to mention a raid? Metadata is cool, but it has to attach to something.
I don't take it. That one. Yeah Yeah. I love the way you're all looking each other. Somebody else take that one. Quit no, no. So the rate generally is something that you would associate with the overarching project or theme of whatever the publication.
I know that you wouldn't in a journal article. How do I say that in my article? You would be doing a tether way round, right? So it'd be part of the metadata of the article itself. The article would be associated with the road, so it would depend on where your article is. So I jumped in and I apologize. I don't mean to interrupt you. Please finish.
Well, I'm imagining a researcher who is, say, a graduate student at my university, and they found a wonderful article and the article has a Doi and it has the ORCIDs. But this person has never heard of octopus. How would they go from that article to find all of the other wonderful things in octopus associated with this project? They're looking at the terminal output or one of the terminal outputs, and how do they get to the rest of it there at the end?
How do they get to the beginning? Thank you. That's my point. We are in the terminal output now. Where do we put this stuff? OK so the. So there's two different things going on here, right? So in the Doi record of the individual octopus outputs there is related to and Tim can talk in much more detail about the actual data cite metadata, but that talks about how the links and the chain are related to each other.
OK and that's the chaining and the link. As far as the raid goes, the raid is a separate thing which allows you to bind a lot of different kind of identifiers together and tell the story of a project or a theme together. OK, so raid isn't currently part of the octopus system. It's a different system. So the talk was about two different things. It was about octopus and first half and then it was about raid.
And so raid the a different kind of thing which gathers together. So if you want to talk about the people involved in the project that use their ORCID IDs and got them together, if you want to talk about places, you might use a raw or an and so on and so forth. And again, you get that hang on. And I am looking at that terminal now. I'm looking at that article.
I can look at that article and find ORCIDs. I can look at that article and find raws. Do you expect me to be able to look at an article and find a raid? Yep well, in the same way that, you know, you have a somewhere in the collarbone, right? So we still got to figure that out. Yeah because we've got like four or 5 and a minute. Yeah I'll take somewhere in the collarbones.
Yeah if you don't know me, where I'm coming from is the journal article tag set another tag sets like that. I'm in machine readable form now I can find it if I know where to put it, which somewhere in the phone will do. For now, there's no specific place. It's an article level object is what I'm hearing. Yeah so we're still. Yeah so we're still working with where exactly it goes in places like Jets and if you want more details.
So we've got a workshop in two weeks in Utrecht so I can, I could answer your, your questions in much more detail in about two weeks. How's that? Thank you. At least it's a legitimate question. Thank you. Yeah, it's definitely a legitimate question. I understand why you're asking it.
I think this workshop we talked about pros in the acknowledgments and raids and the funding metadata. So there's a possibility. Yeah shutting up now. So there were some other comments in the chat and I'm not sure if anyone wants to speak up and convert those into questions or conversation.
I guess I can step in for those of you who weren't in the previous session if you wear apologies. So I'm Jenny Evans. I was involved in the leading the practice research voices project that Adam was speaking about as part of the presentation. And I think for me, these kind of this diversity of outputs conversation is very kind of connected with conversations in the UK around research culture and recognizing a diversity of outputs as part of that conversation and open research indicators.
So there's also the idea of a narrative CV now in the UK that recognizes that broader range of research activities. So kind of going back to that recognition of evaluation and reward systems, while there's still a way to go, there is conversations happening. There's enormous initiative. I've forgotten. I think Adam can share a link in the chat, but but I think there is and also just thinking about parts of the world and communities who their knowledge is actually in video, in, in performance, in non text outputs.
Making the kind of conversation more inclusive means that we have to move in that direction. If we really care about HDI or diversity and inclusion, how we iframe it. So so I think while it's a culture change, as Adam mentioned, and it's going to take decades rather than years, it's really important to be having these conversations. Otherwise we end up continuing this very relatively narrow, historic approach to recognition.
Recognition and research doesn't mean it's going to happen overnight, but but yeah, it's important that it happens. So initiatives that are really important as counterpart ideas and mechanisms. Just in terms of some practical implementation challenges we face. So you posted the metric type report there.
So we had kind of some of the authors of that report review, a kind of like ratings quality feature that we wanted to implement in octopussy. You'll notice it isn't there now because we were kind of in danger, even just kind of doing things like trying to put quality ratings on what is a good kind of method, what should be included in a good hypothesis, and looking for things around kind of completeness and things like that, just kind of putting those out.
We were kind of introducing all sorts of stuff we hadn't, hadn't thought about and kind of getting kind of systems that could have been there to be gamed. So yeah, we're taking a kind of big step back on putting kind of rating stats in any kind of way impacts kind of metrics and also trying to kind of reduce as much kind of visible biased as possible on the site as well kind of relate related to that.
But yeah, kind of it's Yeah. Because something that. We thought it might be a little bit easier when we were just sticking to what we thought were kind of like the facts around kind of structures around kind of what I guess kind of hypotheses, et cetera should look like. But you're right, if you start looking across disciplines, it kind of falls down a bit.
Yeah, it's just that. Plus, I think we definitely should. So I see that netty is unmute and Regina has a hand up. Oh, nutty. We can't hear you. I can. I can speak now if Nitti isn't ready.
Yeah, I see her waving her hand. OK my question is at a much higher macroscopic level of the landscape, but in the library cataloging community over the past couple of years, linked data has been a very big topic and I haven't heard the term in all these discussions of pids and research outputs. I'm just wondering where this library vision of linked data with the prize is poised to interoperate with these research use of pids, etc.? And can we look at pids as a type of Yuri and that we're kind of all in this game together and that the vision is perhaps ultimately this linked out of world?
Or am I misunderstanding where we're going? I've heard so much about pids at this conference by choice, but I want to fit that into the view that I've gotten over the years in the library world. Kate, do you want me to be brutally honest, or do you want me to be kind? Please be brutally honest. It's time linked to us going nowhere. And it's nonsense.
But it's lovely and it's really nice to see. And I quote you on that. Yeah, it's, it's, it suffers from the same issue that JML suffers from and it suffers from the same issue that the tuples of the semantic web suffer from. It doesn't actually link back to anything. It's a statement that is not linked to any particular one thing, and it doesn't actually really in the end particularly help.
And so you're embedding a kind of immutable thing in an immutable document. You're embedding a statement. Of something which, you know, then you build a discovery network around and then you build a other thing around. And again, I will iframe this entirely as my own personal opinion. But, you know, it it doesn't help anyone really in the long term.
You stick a statement as a matter layer on top of the. Thanks you might as well write something on a stone. And that's what the technological equivalent is. It's not, you know, in the end of the day, helpful. So the link data isn't linked and isn't data. So, yeah, that's the main issue with it. Fascinating but don't you think that pids are in some ways part of a potential interconnected environment in interoperability?
Yes so pids are. The opposite of Lake Taylor. Right so kids are. Persistent and uniquely identifying, so persistent in that they have governance behind them and that they guarantee that they'll be around. So the thing the reason that the last bit of my talk about actual hypertext and the visions of Bush and Ted and Doug is because.
I say Bush because I didn't meet him. Because I didn't think so anyway. Is it that they know, those visions are about like interconnected data and Doug's vision about kind of the bootstrap and about connecting all of this information together for communal good and about, you know, the provenance behind these things so that those links are the understand where that information has come from.
Right and again, these kind of secondary fabrics that are coming on top of the underlying information. And the metadata behind persistent identifiers are starting to reflect that kind of early hypertext work. And that kind of got swamped by the world wide web and the kind of it's just barely good enough. We'll just go ahead with this kind of stuff where, you know, you had before that where you had links that were bi-directional and whenever you went one way, you knew what was at the other end of it.
The web is basically a pointer that says go that way, and if you go that way, then you don't know where you came from. You know, the browsers are the things that are storing, your information. It's not the actual links themselves. Whereas in hypertext it's, it's the linkages that you have a graph, right? The world wide web is not a graph and whereas hypertext is a graph and the persistent identifier fabric.
Ideally and again, you know, I'm talking lots of Ideally here and there's lots of issues about building secondary fabric whenever the primary fabric itself is not necessarily particularly whole, but that's a separate issue. You know. It you know, it starts to look more like the hypertext division.
And it's you know, there are touch view of personal information and how that personal information is linked together in lots of different contexts. And by switching context, you have a different view of that information. That field of information is also reflected in, you know, again, those kind of different fields of metadata and those currying those kind of narratives around and as things look together again, so those post-hoc graphs that are starting to be built, that show kind of those interrelations and, you know, those first and second order connections and derivations that you can build from things and you know, you start to infer communities and.
And how to build things together and, you know, bring non-obvious information, inferential information out. There's all start to look like things that you can do from a graph. And those things that can do from a graph with micro-transactions and other things. There's an actual cost and sustainability built in to these networks. Yeah, it starts to look more like a connected information fabric, so.
Yeah and I'm always willing to. To listen to defense of RDF. But you know, again, I already have a busted flush. The only way that RDF semantic web works is that everyone in the world agrees to a global taxonomy, which is constantly updated to encapsulate all knowledge at all times universally. So, you know, if you could do that, then RDF and semantic web and linked data works fine.
There's some continued conversation about data in the chat. But given that we're running a little bit short on time now, I think that maybe we should not discuss the shortcomings or benefits. Yeah, that's a very good question that he just put into the chat.
Are there activities that ISO should follow up on, I assume, related to ORCID in general, not just to link data. I would definitely love to follow up on discussions around I know there's. This current work on the journal article versions work and I think that should look at some of these ideas on sectional work. So I think the thing that we presented today should be folded into the JV working group.
So I think that's one really concrete proposal that I'd like to bring forward. I also would really like to propose some kind of investigation, even though I keep asking and just currently still Breathe. Take in a very long time to think about actual membership. So that's a separate measure on looking at how information, fabric and the way that those links are spread.
That kind of linking in fabric in the way that I do. It's more kind of the provenance of already own stuff at the minute. But I think that there's certainly a. A place for NISO and those kind of standards to bring a discussion about. Those kind of expressions forward. And really there should be a link between the persistent identifier community, the hypertext community and kind of the burgeoning communities.
And I'm not sure there there is. It might just be me, to be honest, but, you know, I've seen a couple of other people talk about 68. And as a final thing, if people have not ever watched Doug's 1968 mother of all demo, I would challenge you not to reached the end of this week without having watched that. It is amazing.
And other people should speak too. Sorry so it's a we've reached a little bit of a quiet spot. We do still have time. And I do have questions, but they're not really wrap up questions. So if anyone else has something they want to say. Speak up.
All right. I'm going to go ahead and ask my non wrap up question. In that case. So it occurs to me that a lot of people this could get very messy with people starting the same project sort of simultaneously and intentionally or people branching off and treating a project as new when it really should be connected to something else, or vice versa.
Attaching something to a project that someone else thinks doesn't belong. What is your plan for keeping the data sort of in a format that everyone agrees is an appropriate representation of the projects and where they belong? Is this related to raid or octopus or the octopus? So you have a term for this then because Tim has got a plan? I think so, Yeah. So this is something that I think we're going to need to spend a bit of time just sitting down and making sure we've got the right approach for.
But at the moment we've got, I suppose, working theory, if you like, for how we think we could solve this problem. Because what we have at the moment is a series of library of Congress categories at the top with lots of research problems coming out of those. And people could add more research problems where they want. And then obviously from those, you get chains of a, you know, a research project forming below those research problems.
And things can get very complicated very quickly with people throwing in, you know, additional publications into that chain and people working on part of a chain and then someone else picks it up, all sorts of things happening there. So the idea we have is that we create a differentiation between a research problem and a subject area, a research topic, and we give our users the ability to create both.
And then through proper messaging within the UI, we prompt our users to consider whether they need to create a new topic or attach their problem to a different topic. Whilst they're in the process of creating that new research problem they want to add in. And that way we can hopefully help the community self-manage the categorization for their research. There's a few other additions we'll need to make sure that that doesn't get away from them.
So for instance, if you're working on this publication chain and someone else adds in a new research problem to your, you know, your method or something like that, that in itself, that could have changed discipline, that could have changed topic. It could be just a slightly different lens that doesn't perhaps sit underneath the original topic you have at the top. So we also need to make sure that we prompt people to either at that point create a new problem or create a new link to an existing sorry, not problem topic or a link to an existing topic elsewhere in the system so that they can keep it in the right place, I suppose.
And the idea if we execute this properly is that we'll end up with perhaps a spider web is probably the best visual analogy we could use of research problems forming and other problems and other pieces of research below that slowly drifting into other areas, but in theory remaining correctly categorized as projects. Progress thank you.
And we are now, according to my clock, 1 minute over time, I assume other people have other things they need to go to. So I will stop talking if anyone else wants to say anything final. Go right ahead. But then we'll close up. Thank you so much, everyone. Mostly just thank you.
This is new and different and exciting and nobody knows if it's going to work yet, but you're trying and that's really exciting for your work. Thank you know, stuff like this as well. So Thanks. I would love to see Adam and a linked open data person get into a debate just to debate. We can all vote. Who wins at the end?
Wonderful there's been some there's been some of the pub, but I don't think there's ever been an official venue. But I'm more than happy. Maybe it'll be a Charleston conference session. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, everyone. I really enjoyed it much.
Please keep an on the Google Doc. We'd love to find some more work coming out of it.
Segment:0 .
All right. That was really fantastic. And exciting. And I am the moderator for this session. But I think mostly I would like to sit back and let other people do the questioning. There were several there was a nice, lively dialogue in the chat during the session about being scooped.
I don't know if the speakers want to talk about that. The concern was if you post your idea or your project. And what you're doing. And people could see what you're doing and scoop you and do something similar faster. So maybe that would be a good topic to talk about. And there are some other things that came up, but honestly, I would love if people would just go ahead and unmute themselves and ask the questions or if the speakers want to just expand on what they just talked about in the recording, that's fine too.
So with that, I'm going to shoot myself for a moment and see where it goes. You mentioned scooping. We can get kind elaborate a little bit on that. I mean, both Tim and I can responded to the question in the chat, I think about the same, same time. But so Tim also kind of feel free to, to jump in.
But if you're scared of kind of getting you kind of work scoop don't want to share your data, don't even want to share your research problem or hypothesis because someone else will see. That's that's what you're working on. You can't hold it back. So yeah, no one's kind of forcing you to kind of like publish kind of as, as you go if, if it's OK. I've got to this stage in my project.
Now I've got the findings I need. I can go out and publish those days kind of four or five parts of the chain, kind of all in one go. I mean, it's not the kind of like most it's not the most ideal use case or not to person. It's still kind of driven by those kind of like those old incentives or so I'd say our current incentives that we, that we've got around, Yeah.
Kind of publishing and getting the impact that you need from your, from your, your journal article. So kind of yeah, the kind of sort of culture kind of sharing and perhaps putting something out there for, for someone else to kind of pick up and run with and work on. That's not there kind of right now in a lot of kind of research groups. So I time will tell on that one. But in the meantime, it's basically yeah, I mean, if you're scared of scooping, don't, don't actually need to publish as you go, although yeah, kind of.
I think the kind of strength of octopus is putting your kind of early stage stuff out there and seeing what kind of like highly skilled data analysts do with this data set. What could other people do with this kind of problem area or kind of yeah, kind of my hypothesis. So yeah, it's there for kind of other people to create their own chains off your work as well. So I think just to I suppose, reiterate that the thing that octopus does slightly differently is that it gives you the choice between either publishing it as you go very early on or publishing it.
Once your project is more mature and you've got more out there. And you can demonstrate some sort of later stages of the research process, I suppose, as well. You're not particularly forced into either one with octopus. So say no hands up or unmute mix. I'm going to ask a follow up question to that related to. Sort of the policy around this. How do you envision people getting into octopus in the first place and under what situation would someone think, oh, yes, I'm going to go start a project in octopus and track it?
Is it going to be required for grants or by institutions? How do people start on this? Is it always just individual choice? So currently. Yes so we're not we're not in a policy environment right now where outsources is kind of being mandated by any funder what we are. So octopus is funded by the kind of main funding body in the UK, UK research and innovation, who are the umbrella body for our research councils.
And so it's sort of my kind of government research funding. We're funded out of their culture change programme, so they've got on this space, hence kind of funding projects like octopus. They run an exercise in the UK for the research excellence framework, which is a kind of big exercise, looking at kind of the sort of impact of the grants that they've given out and kind of where the impact of research across the country, what as the people that kind of look after octopus, we would like to be lobbying to get into kind of that framework and say, OK, can octopus outputs please be counted in that framework?
So yeah, kind of and kind of right now that the next ref that's not set up. But yeah, it would take a fairly radical change I think to stuff like that. It's in there, but we can try. So we have to rely on other methods now because it isn't a. Is choice. It's not incentivized by kind of the funders.
So mainly I think kind of focusing on the kind of sort of potential for collaboration and kind of working with other researchers seeing what, you know, what you can get out of making your research visible kind of at the early stages, also focusing on the benefits of kind of open research, open science, really engaging with the kind of research communities where reproducibility is important because just like is kind of designed to kind of solve a lot of the problems that they're trying to they're trying to tackle.
We've also got some ideas around engaging funders to perhaps use octopus to identify research projects that they might want to fund in the future. So we have a plan to implement what we're calling currently a gold flag. We kind of have red flags for kind of moderation purposes. But yeah, the gold flag would be I'm interested in, in, in this, in perhaps funding this type of idea.
It doesn't necessarily have to be kind of big sort of funding councils. It could be kind of smaller amounts of money as well. So yeah, private individuals. So yeah, kind of we're looking at aspects like that to kind of incentivize folks because yeah, we're not, we're not, we're not tapped into the publishing kind of incentives that everyone's kind of working towards at the moment, although we are working with some kind of more open kind of journals to use octopus outfits as submissions as well.
So that's something that we are also looking into because yeah, octopus doesn't replace the journal, it's there with the facts, the journals there to kind of still provide that kind of narrative and kind of highlight and kind of tell that story. So yeah, there's a number of things there. So yeah, kind of, yeah, we're, we're trying to encourage people to kind of make the choice rather than the, the kind of sort of systems incentives that the competition's got in their favor.
So there have been more questions coming in the chat. I don't know if Debbie, do you want to unmute and ask them yourself or do you want me to read them? Or the speakers just could read them? Oh, good. I can ask. My first one is I really am fascinated by the idea of octopus and it's a UK funded thing at the moment.
I understand that. What if I'm a researcher who publishes for a governmental institution? United states? Brazilian nigerian? Am I welcome on octopus? Are there monetary concerns there? No, you're most definitely welcome. Every researcher in the world that wants to use octopus is welcome to publish on it in terms of our.
Kind of growth and targets. We do have some kind of UK specific numbers that are funding ANSI wants to hit. We've also got global numbers which are way higher than the UK ones. So yeah, I assumed that. But you haven't said it. Sorry I should have. But sir, that was me giving you an opportunity.
And now I have my real question. In a previous session, we talked about I am going to the terminal stage here. I have just written a journal article. I'm a researcher. I have an article. I assume a raid should be attached to that journal article somehow. Is it an article?
Bit of metadata? Is it attached to the people? Is it attached to the funding? Where? inside my journal article. Would you expect me to mention a raid? Metadata is cool, but it has to attach to something.
I don't take it. That one. Yeah Yeah. I love the way you're all looking each other. Somebody else take that one. Quit no, no. So the rate generally is something that you would associate with the overarching project or theme of whatever the publication.
I know that you wouldn't in a journal article. How do I say that in my article? You would be doing a tether way round, right? So it'd be part of the metadata of the article itself. The article would be associated with the road, so it would depend on where your article is. So I jumped in and I apologize. I don't mean to interrupt you. Please finish.
Well, I'm imagining a researcher who is, say, a graduate student at my university, and they found a wonderful article and the article has a Doi and it has the ORCIDs. But this person has never heard of octopus. How would they go from that article to find all of the other wonderful things in octopus associated with this project? They're looking at the terminal output or one of the terminal outputs, and how do they get to the rest of it there at the end?
How do they get to the beginning? Thank you. That's my point. We are in the terminal output now. Where do we put this stuff? OK so the. So there's two different things going on here, right? So in the Doi record of the individual octopus outputs there is related to and Tim can talk in much more detail about the actual data cite metadata, but that talks about how the links and the chain are related to each other.
OK and that's the chaining and the link. As far as the raid goes, the raid is a separate thing which allows you to bind a lot of different kind of identifiers together and tell the story of a project or a theme together. OK, so raid isn't currently part of the octopus system. It's a different system. So the talk was about two different things. It was about octopus and first half and then it was about raid.
And so raid the a different kind of thing which gathers together. So if you want to talk about the people involved in the project that use their ORCID IDs and got them together, if you want to talk about places, you might use a raw or an and so on and so forth. And again, you get that hang on. And I am looking at that terminal now. I'm looking at that article.
I can look at that article and find ORCIDs. I can look at that article and find raws. Do you expect me to be able to look at an article and find a raid? Yep well, in the same way that, you know, you have a somewhere in the collarbone, right? So we still got to figure that out. Yeah because we've got like four or 5 and a minute. Yeah I'll take somewhere in the collarbones.
Yeah if you don't know me, where I'm coming from is the journal article tag set another tag sets like that. I'm in machine readable form now I can find it if I know where to put it, which somewhere in the phone will do. For now, there's no specific place. It's an article level object is what I'm hearing. Yeah so we're still. Yeah so we're still working with where exactly it goes in places like Jets and if you want more details.
So we've got a workshop in two weeks in Utrecht so I can, I could answer your, your questions in much more detail in about two weeks. How's that? Thank you. At least it's a legitimate question. Thank you. Yeah, it's definitely a legitimate question. I understand why you're asking it.
I think this workshop we talked about pros in the acknowledgments and raids and the funding metadata. So there's a possibility. Yeah shutting up now. So there were some other comments in the chat and I'm not sure if anyone wants to speak up and convert those into questions or conversation.
I guess I can step in for those of you who weren't in the previous session if you wear apologies. So I'm Jenny Evans. I was involved in the leading the practice research voices project that Adam was speaking about as part of the presentation. And I think for me, these kind of this diversity of outputs conversation is very kind of connected with conversations in the UK around research culture and recognizing a diversity of outputs as part of that conversation and open research indicators.
So there's also the idea of a narrative CV now in the UK that recognizes that broader range of research activities. So kind of going back to that recognition of evaluation and reward systems, while there's still a way to go, there is conversations happening. There's enormous initiative. I've forgotten. I think Adam can share a link in the chat, but but I think there is and also just thinking about parts of the world and communities who their knowledge is actually in video, in, in performance, in non text outputs.
Making the kind of conversation more inclusive means that we have to move in that direction. If we really care about HDI or diversity and inclusion, how we iframe it. So so I think while it's a culture change, as Adam mentioned, and it's going to take decades rather than years, it's really important to be having these conversations. Otherwise we end up continuing this very relatively narrow, historic approach to recognition.
Recognition and research doesn't mean it's going to happen overnight, but but yeah, it's important that it happens. So initiatives that are really important as counterpart ideas and mechanisms. Just in terms of some practical implementation challenges we face. So you posted the metric type report there.
So we had kind of some of the authors of that report review, a kind of like ratings quality feature that we wanted to implement in octopussy. You'll notice it isn't there now because we were kind of in danger, even just kind of doing things like trying to put quality ratings on what is a good kind of method, what should be included in a good hypothesis, and looking for things around kind of completeness and things like that, just kind of putting those out.
We were kind of introducing all sorts of stuff we hadn't, hadn't thought about and kind of getting kind of systems that could have been there to be gamed. So yeah, we're taking a kind of big step back on putting kind of rating stats in any kind of way impacts kind of metrics and also trying to kind of reduce as much kind of visible biased as possible on the site as well kind of relate related to that.
But yeah, kind of it's Yeah. Because something that. We thought it might be a little bit easier when we were just sticking to what we thought were kind of like the facts around kind of structures around kind of what I guess kind of hypotheses, et cetera should look like. But you're right, if you start looking across disciplines, it kind of falls down a bit.
Yeah, it's just that. Plus, I think we definitely should. So I see that netty is unmute and Regina has a hand up. Oh, nutty. We can't hear you. I can. I can speak now if Nitti isn't ready.
Yeah, I see her waving her hand. OK my question is at a much higher macroscopic level of the landscape, but in the library cataloging community over the past couple of years, linked data has been a very big topic and I haven't heard the term in all these discussions of pids and research outputs. I'm just wondering where this library vision of linked data with the prize is poised to interoperate with these research use of pids, etc.? And can we look at pids as a type of Yuri and that we're kind of all in this game together and that the vision is perhaps ultimately this linked out of world?
Or am I misunderstanding where we're going? I've heard so much about pids at this conference by choice, but I want to fit that into the view that I've gotten over the years in the library world. Kate, do you want me to be brutally honest, or do you want me to be kind? Please be brutally honest. It's time linked to us going nowhere. And it's nonsense.
But it's lovely and it's really nice to see. And I quote you on that. Yeah, it's, it's, it suffers from the same issue that JML suffers from and it suffers from the same issue that the tuples of the semantic web suffer from. It doesn't actually link back to anything. It's a statement that is not linked to any particular one thing, and it doesn't actually really in the end particularly help.
And so you're embedding a kind of immutable thing in an immutable document. You're embedding a statement. Of something which, you know, then you build a discovery network around and then you build a other thing around. And again, I will iframe this entirely as my own personal opinion. But, you know, it it doesn't help anyone really in the long term.
You stick a statement as a matter layer on top of the. Thanks you might as well write something on a stone. And that's what the technological equivalent is. It's not, you know, in the end of the day, helpful. So the link data isn't linked and isn't data. So, yeah, that's the main issue with it. Fascinating but don't you think that pids are in some ways part of a potential interconnected environment in interoperability?
Yes so pids are. The opposite of Lake Taylor. Right so kids are. Persistent and uniquely identifying, so persistent in that they have governance behind them and that they guarantee that they'll be around. So the thing the reason that the last bit of my talk about actual hypertext and the visions of Bush and Ted and Doug is because.
I say Bush because I didn't meet him. Because I didn't think so anyway. Is it that they know, those visions are about like interconnected data and Doug's vision about kind of the bootstrap and about connecting all of this information together for communal good and about, you know, the provenance behind these things so that those links are the understand where that information has come from.
Right and again, these kind of secondary fabrics that are coming on top of the underlying information. And the metadata behind persistent identifiers are starting to reflect that kind of early hypertext work. And that kind of got swamped by the world wide web and the kind of it's just barely good enough. We'll just go ahead with this kind of stuff where, you know, you had before that where you had links that were bi-directional and whenever you went one way, you knew what was at the other end of it.
The web is basically a pointer that says go that way, and if you go that way, then you don't know where you came from. You know, the browsers are the things that are storing, your information. It's not the actual links themselves. Whereas in hypertext it's, it's the linkages that you have a graph, right? The world wide web is not a graph and whereas hypertext is a graph and the persistent identifier fabric.
Ideally and again, you know, I'm talking lots of Ideally here and there's lots of issues about building secondary fabric whenever the primary fabric itself is not necessarily particularly whole, but that's a separate issue. You know. It you know, it starts to look more like the hypertext division.
And it's you know, there are touch view of personal information and how that personal information is linked together in lots of different contexts. And by switching context, you have a different view of that information. That field of information is also reflected in, you know, again, those kind of different fields of metadata and those currying those kind of narratives around and as things look together again, so those post-hoc graphs that are starting to be built, that show kind of those interrelations and, you know, those first and second order connections and derivations that you can build from things and you know, you start to infer communities and.
And how to build things together and, you know, bring non-obvious information, inferential information out. There's all start to look like things that you can do from a graph. And those things that can do from a graph with micro-transactions and other things. There's an actual cost and sustainability built in to these networks. Yeah, it starts to look more like a connected information fabric, so.
Yeah and I'm always willing to. To listen to defense of RDF. But you know, again, I already have a busted flush. The only way that RDF semantic web works is that everyone in the world agrees to a global taxonomy, which is constantly updated to encapsulate all knowledge at all times universally. So, you know, if you could do that, then RDF and semantic web and linked data works fine.
There's some continued conversation about data in the chat. But given that we're running a little bit short on time now, I think that maybe we should not discuss the shortcomings or benefits. Yeah, that's a very good question that he just put into the chat.
Are there activities that ISO should follow up on, I assume, related to ORCID in general, not just to link data. I would definitely love to follow up on discussions around I know there's. This current work on the journal article versions work and I think that should look at some of these ideas on sectional work. So I think the thing that we presented today should be folded into the JV working group.
So I think that's one really concrete proposal that I'd like to bring forward. I also would really like to propose some kind of investigation, even though I keep asking and just currently still Breathe. Take in a very long time to think about actual membership. So that's a separate measure on looking at how information, fabric and the way that those links are spread.
That kind of linking in fabric in the way that I do. It's more kind of the provenance of already own stuff at the minute. But I think that there's certainly a. A place for NISO and those kind of standards to bring a discussion about. Those kind of expressions forward. And really there should be a link between the persistent identifier community, the hypertext community and kind of the burgeoning communities.
And I'm not sure there there is. It might just be me, to be honest, but, you know, I've seen a couple of other people talk about 68. And as a final thing, if people have not ever watched Doug's 1968 mother of all demo, I would challenge you not to reached the end of this week without having watched that. It is amazing.
And other people should speak too. Sorry so it's a we've reached a little bit of a quiet spot. We do still have time. And I do have questions, but they're not really wrap up questions. So if anyone else has something they want to say. Speak up.
All right. I'm going to go ahead and ask my non wrap up question. In that case. So it occurs to me that a lot of people this could get very messy with people starting the same project sort of simultaneously and intentionally or people branching off and treating a project as new when it really should be connected to something else, or vice versa.
Attaching something to a project that someone else thinks doesn't belong. What is your plan for keeping the data sort of in a format that everyone agrees is an appropriate representation of the projects and where they belong? Is this related to raid or octopus or the octopus? So you have a term for this then because Tim has got a plan? I think so, Yeah. So this is something that I think we're going to need to spend a bit of time just sitting down and making sure we've got the right approach for.
But at the moment we've got, I suppose, working theory, if you like, for how we think we could solve this problem. Because what we have at the moment is a series of library of Congress categories at the top with lots of research problems coming out of those. And people could add more research problems where they want. And then obviously from those, you get chains of a, you know, a research project forming below those research problems.
And things can get very complicated very quickly with people throwing in, you know, additional publications into that chain and people working on part of a chain and then someone else picks it up, all sorts of things happening there. So the idea we have is that we create a differentiation between a research problem and a subject area, a research topic, and we give our users the ability to create both.
And then through proper messaging within the UI, we prompt our users to consider whether they need to create a new topic or attach their problem to a different topic. Whilst they're in the process of creating that new research problem they want to add in. And that way we can hopefully help the community self-manage the categorization for their research. There's a few other additions we'll need to make sure that that doesn't get away from them.
So for instance, if you're working on this publication chain and someone else adds in a new research problem to your, you know, your method or something like that, that in itself, that could have changed discipline, that could have changed topic. It could be just a slightly different lens that doesn't perhaps sit underneath the original topic you have at the top. So we also need to make sure that we prompt people to either at that point create a new problem or create a new link to an existing sorry, not problem topic or a link to an existing topic elsewhere in the system so that they can keep it in the right place, I suppose.
And the idea if we execute this properly is that we'll end up with perhaps a spider web is probably the best visual analogy we could use of research problems forming and other problems and other pieces of research below that slowly drifting into other areas, but in theory remaining correctly categorized as projects. Progress thank you.
And we are now, according to my clock, 1 minute over time, I assume other people have other things they need to go to. So I will stop talking if anyone else wants to say anything final. Go right ahead. But then we'll close up. Thank you so much, everyone. Mostly just thank you.
This is new and different and exciting and nobody knows if it's going to work yet, but you're trying and that's really exciting for your work. Thank you know, stuff like this as well. So Thanks. I would love to see Adam and a linked open data person get into a debate just to debate. We can all vote. Who wins at the end?
Wonderful there's been some there's been some of the pub, but I don't think there's ever been an official venue. But I'm more than happy. Maybe it'll be a Charleston conference session. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, everyone. I really enjoyed it much.
Please keep an on the Google Doc. We'd love to find some more work coming out of it.
Form Title Download
Transcript
Form Title Bookmark
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Share
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Accessibility and Keyboard Shortcuts
The cadmore media player is a professional video and audio player experience designed to deliver media as well as relevant transcript, segmentation, and metadata. On the screen is a traditional html video player with buttons such as play, pause, forward, captioning, language and play speed selection and more. Adjacent to the video player are generally tabs, one of which shows a scrolling transcript of the video and the other shows any segmentation of the media, sometimes referred to as chapters. At the top of the video is a menu bar containing an Explore button and Tools button. The Explore button allows you to dig deeper into the video by opening up an explore dialog which contains tabs for a visual navigation of the video using thumbnails, an about tab which contains rich metadata about the media, a segments tab which contains further information about the video, and a related tab which contains links to other media related to this media. The tools button opens a menu with options for sharing the media on social media, creating bookmarking links, creating embed codes for your website, generating citations, and more.
Keyboard Shortcuts
Keyboard shortcuts only work while you are in forms mode. By entering forms mode, you will be able to quickly access portions of the media player with single key commands.
Spacebar: Play/Pause Toggle
I: Info Menu,
O: Tools Menu
T: Transcript Tab,
S: Segments Tab
F: Forward 15,
R: Rewind 15
L: Languages,
P: Playspeed
M: Mute Toggle,
V: Volume Bar
N: Video Only Toggle,
B: Full Screen Toggle
C: Captions Toggle
Escape: Closes dialogs and menus / Exits Player
Z: Next Transcript Chapter
X: Previous Transcript Chapter
Q: Next Transcript Paragraph
W: Previous Transcript Paragraph
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Embed Size
-
You Size - Responsive
-
We Size - Responsive
-
Picture Overlay Popup
-
400 x 225
-
512 x 288
-
400 x 700
-
768 x 1024
-
1024 x 512
-
1280 x 608
Form Title Cite
No citation provided.
Info
Segments
Related
Thumbnails
Exit Clip Mode
You have requested to see a portion of the video outside of the clip.
Click OK to switch to the full video or click if you would like to stay inside the clip. You can always go back to the clip with Tools and Clip Mode