Question 1: What are we sharing and what needs to be shared?
The landscape of information and data flows and repositories is multifaceted. Peer reviewed journals and scientific conferences are still the basis of scholarly communication, but science blogs and social community platforms become increasingly important. Research data are now increasingly managed using advanced technologies and sharing of raw data has become an important issue.
This topic thread will address and discuss details about the types of information that need to be shared in our domain, e.g.:
Information residing in communications between individuals, such as in blogs and
community platforms supported by sources such as directories of people and
institutions;
Formal scientific data collections as published data sets and their associated
metadata and quality indicators, peer-reviewed scholarly journals or document
repositories;
Knowledge „derivatives‟ such as collections of descriptions of agricultural
technologies, learning object repositories, expertise databases, etc.; And surely more...
There are several interesting examples of successful data exchange between distributed datasets, and some of them in the area of agricultural research and innovation. There are also ambitious attempts that still have to live up to expectations. A common characteristic of most examples is that they are based on specific ad-hoc solutions more than on a general principle or architecture, thus requiring coordination between "tightly coupled" components and limiting the possibilities of re-using the datasets anywhere and of replicating the experiment.
In some areas there are global platforms for sharing and interoperability. Some of these address the need to access scholarly publications, mostly those organized by the publishers, and others address the interfacing of open archives. With regard to standards and services in support of interoperability, there are several very successful initiatives, each dealing with different data domains. Among document repositories, the most successful initiative is surely the Open Archives Initiative (OAI) Protocol for Metadata Harvesting used by a global network of open archives. The strength of this movement is changing the face of scholarly publishing. Geospatial and remote sensing data have strong communities that have developed a number of wildly successful standards such as OGC that have in turn spurred important open source projects such as GeoServer. Finally, in relation to statistics from surveys, censuses and time-series, there has been considerable global cooperation among international organizations leading to initiatives such as SDMX and DDI, embraced by the World Bank, IMF, UNSD, OECD and others.
Singer System1, GeoNetwork2, and GeneOntology Consortium3 are examples of successful initiatives to create mechanisms for data exchange within scientific communities. The SDMX4 initiative aims to create a global exchange standard for statistical data.
There are more examples, but these advanced systems cannot have a strong impact on the average (smaller, less capacitated) agricultural information systems, because overall there are no easy mechanisms and tools for information systems developers to access, collect and mash up data from distributed sources. An infrastructure of standards, web sevices and tools needs to be created.
1 Singer System http://singer.cgiar.org/ Last accessed March 2011
2 GeoNetwork http://www.fao.org/geonetwork/srv/en/main.home Last accessed March 2011
3 GeneOntology Consortium http://www.geneontology.org/ Last accessed March 2011
4 SDMX http://sdmx.org/ Last accessed March 201
I do not completely agree that scientists do not want to share. In my personal experience I never had problems when I wanted information from colleagues. Clearly, if you are in a run for a new hot publication, you will not share what you are going to publish, but: overall we know that we do better science if we share our results.
My experience is sometimes that sharing is not done, when it costs too much extrawork. Everyone is working with pressure and very little time. We have to introduce mechanisms that make information sharing easier and rewarding
Strongly agree Johannes ... Too many people blame scientists as not being open to share. In my experience they are very often leased to share, but only if it is not too much of a burden!
So how do we reduce the sharing burden?
I do agree with both Peter and Johannes that scientists are willing to share but not too strongly. Our work at the Ghana Agricultural Informaiton Network System (GAINS) over the years indicates that they are willing to share but face the problem of what to give out, what formats, fear of their work being 'copied' without giving them credit.
Scientists should be encouraged to share the information they generate. This requires a lot of sensitization and building bridges between them and the information professionals. The question is, are scientists and information professionals on the same side?
Joel
I totally agree, we are currently carrying out some sensitization on sharing infromation using the KARI website and Web 2.0 tools and most of the scientists don't know what to share and how to share it.
Scientists will be more motivated to share when the benefits of doing so can be demonstrated -- not just to themselves but to their employers or funders. Search engines that target Linked Data, perhaps for a specific domain such as "agricultural research", will be able to follow incoming links to a scientist's work in order to generate statistics and analytics, as Twitter engines do for "trending topics".
In my experience as a Librarian in IRRI, I noticed that there are scientists who readily share their journal articles when we send e-mail requests for them. There are, however, some who don't reply to our requests at all in spite of follow-up emails, even if I stress the fact that the paper would be used solely for research purposes.
It is an ideal situation where scientists freely share their research outputs to the world. I notice that there are more who want to share than those who don't.
In addition to research results, expertise should be shared as well, but normally this comes for a fee.
Discuss what we are sharing and what needs to be shared is very important, not least because without such an argument is hard to justify investment in research technologies and methodologies for managing information and knowledge, especially in government institutions such as Embrapa.
However, the discussion always had leanings to the "human" side of the issue and gets stuck on questions of culture change, behavior, attitudes, beliefs, etc.
We are considering the Web 3.0 (someones already point to the Web 4.0), and I have colleagues who still prefer to use the typewriter! They still coexist and are not excluded from the processes of creating, sharing and disseminating information and knowledge.
When the computer came up, some have looked it with suspicion and resistance, but today, 30 years later, the dinosaurs that still use the typewriter are rarities! Joining the computer was of course going forward due to many advantages (and competitiveness) that it had toward his rival la vecchia O..vetti!
The discussion initiated by question 1 of this forum must always continue, but perhaps not a single consensus response will be reached.
I have already mentioned that Embrapa is still very far from internalization of technologies/methodologies of interactivity and interoperability and also of a culture of sharing, but the fact is that many projects are underway at Embrapa networks (nationally and internationally) and the demands for interactivity and interoperability do not cease.
Personally and professionally, I have preferred to defend the strategy of offering technological and methodological solutions to what is already available and urgently needs to be shared. And the work seems to be endless! Adhesion to the process and the logic of sharing in my opinion will be best established naturally ... If sharing data, information and knowledge is something useful, even scientists surrender to the process.
Mechanisms (tools, technologies, workflows?) should be put in place such that information documentation (and thereby sharing) becomes a by-product of every activity done to accomplish a task.
Articles in journals are always thought of as the end-result of any research, the journey to achieve that has to be craftily captured - this is as valuable as the end result.
I agree that the fear of sharing datasets is an obstacle. But the quality and relevance of data and information is another problem. What always come to my mind, which also was emphasized in the 2010 meetings with the prepared Road Map , is the relevance of the research work to poor farmers. This off course should be reflected into the information to be shared. The problem which I feel important is how to ensure that the published research information has considered the needs of poor farmers and approved by farmers and other partners within the innovation system. This would remain as a missing link in the whole process, especially in many of the developing countries, even if emphasis is to be made in the future in the shifting of the research into more people-centered. Now, is it wise to think of "what are the proper mechanisms/standards that could help articulate, document and publish quality and relevant information or research outcomes?". Or How can ICTs enable a more pluralistic, networked approach to information sharing? The outcomes of the discussions could be some agreed guidelines to be useful to NARS and Regional Foras for further improvements in this regard.
<p>I agree that the fear of sharing datasets is an obstacle. But the quality and relevance of data and information is another problem. What always come to my mind, which also was emphasized in the 2010 meetings with the prepared Road Map , is the relevance of <span style="">the research work to poor farmers. This off course should be reflected into the information to be shared. The problem which I feel important is how to ensure that the published research information has considered the needs of poor farmers and approved by farmers and other partners within the innovation system. This would remain as a missing link in the whole process, especially in many of the developing countries, even if emphasis is to be made in the future in the shifting of the research into more people-centered. Now, is it wise to think of "<b>what are the proper mechanisms/standards that could help articulate, document and publish quality and relevant information or research outcomes?</b>". Or <b>How can </b></span><b>ICTs enable a more pluralistic, networked approach to information sharing</b><span style="">? The outcomes of the discussions could be some agreed guidelines to be useful to NARS and Regional Foras for further improvements in this regard. </span></p>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"جدول عادي";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<p> </p>
<p> </p>