Difference between revisions of "Living Sources in Lexical Description"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
== The Living Sources concept == | == The Living Sources concept == | ||
Summary | '''Summary''' | ||
Living Sources is an infrastructure to publish scientific data. | |||
Motivation: Why do we need a Living Sources concept? | Motivation: Why do we need a Living Sources concept? | ||
| Line 10: | Line 12: | ||
'''current situation''' | '''current situation''' | ||
In contrast to the common practice of publishing and discussing | In contrast to the common practice of publishing and discussing '''research results''', currently most scientists do not disclose the underlying '''research data'''. They do not make them available to a wider audience because of various reasons, like: | ||
*failure to see wider applicability of data ("Why would anybody be interested in this?") | |||
*insufficient quality (e.g. the data collection is not finished, it is not properly cross-checked, or the data is not complete) | *insufficient quality (e.g. the data collection is not finished, it is not properly cross-checked, or the data is not complete) | ||
*fear of plagiarism (others might not properly acknowledge the data) | *fear of plagiarism (others might not properly acknowledge the data) | ||
*loss of control over interpretation (others might misunderstand the data, with undeserved blame being cast on the original creator of the data) | *loss of control over interpretation (others might misunderstand the data, with undeserved blame being cast on the original creator of the data) | ||
*loss of primacy of discovery (others might come up with important discoveries that the original creator also observed, but did not have time to work out and publish) | *loss of primacy of discovery (others might come up with important discoveries that the original creator also observed, but did not have time to work out and publish) | ||
*lack of suitable publications to publish the data (most publishers are not interested to publish large tables with raw data) | *lack of suitable publications to publish the data (most publishers are not interested to publish large tables with raw data) | ||
*lack of technical knowledge how to make data available | *lack of technical knowledge how to make data available | ||
*limited scientific recognition for making data available | |||
All these - completely legitimate - reasons lead to the current situation in which data are mostly unavailable for inspection and scientific scrutiny, unavailable for reanalysis, and unavailable for meta-analysis. When much more (raw) data would be available, many new possibilities for research, both within disciplines but also across disciplines, will become possible. | All these - completely legitimate - reasons lead to the current situation in which data are mostly unavailable for inspection and scientific scrutiny, unavailable for reanalysis, and unavailable for meta-analysis. When much more (raw) data would be available, many new possibilities for research, both within disciplines but also across disciplines, will become possible. | ||
'''Solution''' | '''Solution''' | ||
Recent developments in computational infrastructure ("web 2.0") are showing the possibility for new kinds of information exchange. Living Sources will be an online repository of information created for and by scientists, | Recent developments in computational infrastructure ("web 2.0") are showing the possibility for new kinds of information exchange. Living Sources will be an online repository of information '''created for and by scientists, tailored to the goals and needs of these scientists'''. To reach this goal, the concept of Living Sources will tackle problems that are general enough to be of importance to many field on inquiry: | ||
*persistence of data (storage and archiving) | *persistence of data (storage and archiving) | ||
| Line 35: | Line 36: | ||
*incremental publications (corrections and additions possible which is difficult for traditional forms of publications) | *incremental publications (corrections and additions possible which is difficult for traditional forms of publications) | ||
*comments on and citation of individual datapoints (micro-publication too small for traditional forms of publication) | *comments on and citation of individual datapoints (micro-publication too small for traditional forms of publication) | ||
*open peer review schemes | *open peer review schemes | ||
*addition of digitalized legacy material to supplement the newly published data | |||
'''Strategy''' | '''Strategy''' | ||
Living Sources will not attempt to force scientists to adapt to new paradigms of how to deal with data. It will function more as a service to those (sub)fields that have a need for data publication and dissemination. An instance of the Living Sources concept will be in need of: | |||
*Availability of data with high level quality | |||
* | *Support from scientists in the field | ||
*Support from scientists | |||
*Editiorial board (technical checks, organisation of field) | *Editiorial board (technical checks, organisation of field) | ||
*Peer review (content check) | *Peer review (content check) | ||
There are var | |||
'''Two complementary scenarios:''' | '''Two complementary scenarios:''' | ||
*Build-up of a technical infrastructure which enhances the usability of datasets (one stop shop, comparability, searchability, persistence, etc. Envisioned user group: scientists who look for a hosting environment) | *Build-up of a technical infrastructure which enhances the usability of datasets (one stop shop, comparability, searchability, persistence, etc. Envisioned user group: scientists who look for a hosting environment) | ||
*Standards of interoperability of data portals/journals/archives with a common seach engine/browser-like tool (envisioned user group: scientists who want to keep a strong hold on their data) | *Standards of interoperability of data portals/journals/archives with a common seach engine/browser-like tool (envisioned user group: scientists who want to keep a strong hold on their data) | ||
Revision as of 10:30, 19 May 2008
This is a protected page.
The Living Sources concept[edit]
Summary
Living Sources is an infrastructure to publish scientific data.
Motivation: Why do we need a Living Sources concept?
current situation
In contrast to the common practice of publishing and discussing research results, currently most scientists do not disclose the underlying research data. They do not make them available to a wider audience because of various reasons, like:
- failure to see wider applicability of data ("Why would anybody be interested in this?")
- insufficient quality (e.g. the data collection is not finished, it is not properly cross-checked, or the data is not complete)
- fear of plagiarism (others might not properly acknowledge the data)
- loss of control over interpretation (others might misunderstand the data, with undeserved blame being cast on the original creator of the data)
- loss of primacy of discovery (others might come up with important discoveries that the original creator also observed, but did not have time to work out and publish)
- lack of suitable publications to publish the data (most publishers are not interested to publish large tables with raw data)
- lack of technical knowledge how to make data available
- limited scientific recognition for making data available
All these - completely legitimate - reasons lead to the current situation in which data are mostly unavailable for inspection and scientific scrutiny, unavailable for reanalysis, and unavailable for meta-analysis. When much more (raw) data would be available, many new possibilities for research, both within disciplines but also across disciplines, will become possible.
Solution
Recent developments in computational infrastructure ("web 2.0") are showing the possibility for new kinds of information exchange. Living Sources will be an online repository of information created for and by scientists, tailored to the goals and needs of these scientists. To reach this goal, the concept of Living Sources will tackle problems that are general enough to be of importance to many field on inquiry:
- persistence of data (storage and archiving)
- systems of quality control ("peer review")
- securing of scientific recognition and citability
The electronic format of publication offers various additional possibilities:
- incremental publications (corrections and additions possible which is difficult for traditional forms of publications)
- comments on and citation of individual datapoints (micro-publication too small for traditional forms of publication)
- open peer review schemes
- addition of digitalized legacy material to supplement the newly published data
Strategy
Living Sources will not attempt to force scientists to adapt to new paradigms of how to deal with data. It will function more as a service to those (sub)fields that have a need for data publication and dissemination. An instance of the Living Sources concept will be in need of:
- Availability of data with high level quality
- Support from scientists in the field
- Editiorial board (technical checks, organisation of field)
- Peer review (content check)
There are var
Two complementary scenarios:
- Build-up of a technical infrastructure which enhances the usability of datasets (one stop shop, comparability, searchability, persistence, etc. Envisioned user group: scientists who look for a hosting environment)
- Standards of interoperability of data portals/journals/archives with a common seach engine/browser-like tool (envisioned user group: scientists who want to keep a strong hold on their data)
- Persistance of data is secured for data submitted to the system (grid-like backup)
Living Sources in Lexical Description[edit]
First implementation of the Living Sources concept
Scientific scope[edit]
- Lexical data, view on language description and analysis
- Linguistics (Psycholinguistics, Ethnolinguistics, Lexicography, Terminology, Dialectology, Computational Linguistics)
Infrastructure[edit]
Technical issues:
- Formats (TMF, LMF, TEI/dic.)
- Technical infrastructure: Lexus (MPI for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen), eSciDoc
- Unique identification of data objects
- Direct reusability of data (local databases, linking of databases)
- Formats for commentaries
- Formats for orthography profiles
- Citation structure (receipts, recipy, granularity)
Means[edit]
Needed man-power: Lexical Curator
Functional specification/Requirements[edit]
Submission:
Required information, seen as a preface:
- scientific background/research field
- editorial background/rational of the data
- selection criteria: e.g. sampling, fields, etc.
- data category/use of data: e.g. ODD specification, schema, specification of orthography, terminology specification etc.
- links to other databases/sources
Required informtion about the data itself:
- upload vs. URL
- upload on Lexus
- fulltext/XML
- webservice
Concept of an open submission and peer review[edit]
step 1: Technical check (by editors)
- (possibly closed) submission to editors
- editorial check on technical issues (data structure, terminology, preface, etc.)
- possible retraction for scientific check
- data remain submitted (possibly with restriced access)
- these steps can be iterated (each iteration should be time-restriced)
step 2: Content check (by peers)
- open peer-review submission (time-restriced)
- critical assessment about submission as a whole (i.e. commentary on preface, not on individual entries) decide on acceptance. Should be seen separate from commentary on individual entries of the data.
- individual errors/shortcomings can and should be corrected, but should not ban possible publication.
- result: publicated database meaning "the principle of collecting and organising data is good, though there might be discussion about individual items"
- different publication status: e.g. "wordlist", "wordform collection (including frequencies, collocations, etc)", "wortfeld", "language-particular dictionary", "comparative dictionary"
Once a submission has passed the technical step (which is actually already a large hurdle for many traditional lexicographers), a submission is technically published. We would like to encourage people to publish smaller amounts of data, but such smaller datasets of course should be distinguished from large publications (for example complete dictionaries). To allow for different kinds of publications, some kind of stratification is needed. This stratification of publication will happen through the (open) peer review system.
The two basic modes of publications are "Wordlist" (for onomasiological submissions) and "Wordform collection (for semasiological submissions). These 'stamps' are given after the technical check, and it is thus actually not very rewarding to have just one of these labels (cf. a lower-rate journal). To get into one of the more rewarding categories,
step 3: living commentary and growth of data
- addition of more data, corrections, versions
- discussion about individual items (not time-restricted)
Open issue:[edit]
- check if Living Reviews infrastructure for the peer review process can be re-used
- need of a sampling strategy on the data
- sample of full entries
- full overview of specific fields (e.g. all parts of speech, all etymological fields)
Rights[edit]
- Open Access
- Creative Commons Licence for data and metadata (by default: attribution)
- No copyright transfer
- agreement with authors that Living Sources in Lexical Description has the rights (to store) and distribute the data under the Creative Commons Licence
Miscellaneous[edit]
- possibility of third party commentaries by any registered user
Support[edit]
- Potential scientific support from MPI for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, MPI for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig and other Max Planck Instituts
- Potential financial support: ESF call BABEL, Volkswagenstiftung, Heinz-Nixdorf-Stiftung
Other[edit]
- applied for domains livingsources.org, livingsources.com, livingsources.eu (request processed by AEI Potsdam)