Interdisciplinary Models - Revision history

Ml-evs at 16:25, 13 November 2022

2022-11-13T16:25:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:25, 13 November 2022
Line 203:		Line 203:
	-Taking interdisciplinary in a very narrow sense, an example to bridge gaps between existing materials databases is OPTIMADE. We spent 5 years devising a common API format between 15 or so existing crystal structure databases, primarily of competitors, and with varying uptake. Should now be possible for anyone, to create a database and join the federation, e.g., a new project just tripeld the number of structures available. Each database has different slants even if the quanta of data shared is common. Unclear if this is socially sustainable. Hinged on developing a lightweight federation with "shoddy" infrastructure on top of a relatively API format.		-Taking interdisciplinary in a very narrow sense, an example to bridge gaps between existing materials databases is OPTIMADE. We spent 5 years devising a common API format between 15 or so existing crystal structure databases, primarily of competitors, and with varying uptake. Should now be possible for anyone, to create a database and join the federation, e.g., a new project just tripeld the number of structures available. Each database has different slants even if the quanta of data shared is common. Unclear if this is socially sustainable. Hinged on developing a lightweight federation with "shoddy" infrastructure on top of a relatively API format.

	- Specific example: as this data is machine-actionable, new software projects can now query all known materials, potentially significantly accelerating materials discovery. New databases can trivially join the federation, and previously "dead" data can be brought back to life by adding an API on top of it.		- Specific example: as this data is machine-actionable, new software projects can now query all known materials, potentially significantly accelerating materials discovery. New databases can trivially join the federation, and previously "dead" data can be brought back to life by adding an API on top of it. Automated labs can exchange information.

Ml-evs at 16:04, 13 November 2022

2022-11-13T16:04:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:04, 13 November 2022
Line 195:		Line 195:
	Tremendous value vision, sustainable overhead?		Tremendous value vision, sustainable overhead?
	Finding the right structure		Finding the right structure


			Matthew's answers to our draft questions:

			- Research Data Alliance (RDA), Materials Research Data Alliance (MaRDA), workshops

			-Taking interdisciplinary in a very narrow sense, an example to bridge gaps between existing materials databases is OPTIMADE. We spent 5 years devising a common API format between 15 or so existing crystal structure databases, primarily of competitors, and with varying uptake. Should now be possible for anyone, to create a database and join the federation, e.g., a new project just tripeld the number of structures available. Each database has different slants even if the quanta of data shared is common. Unclear if this is socially sustainable. Hinged on developing a lightweight federation with "shoddy" infrastructure on top of a relatively API format.

			- Specific example: as this data is machine-actionable, new software projects can now query all known materials, potentially significantly accelerating materials discovery. New databases can trivially join the federation, and previously "dead" data can be brought back to life by adding an API on top of it.

Lutters at 15:52, 13 November 2022

2022-11-13T15:52:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:52, 13 November 2022
Line 136:		Line 136:

	1.) STRUCTURE & USE		1.) STRUCTURE & USE
	IPCC -> claims obsidian		IPCC -> claims in obsidian
	beyond info ~~artecure~~		beyond info architecture
	holy scripture		holy scripture available for the masses
	find new connections		find new connections
	index		index

Jameshowison at 15:37, 13 November 2022

2022-11-13T15:37:34Z

@@ Line 100: / Line 100: @@
 - Aligning communities of practice with a wider goal?
@@ Line 186: / Line 189: @@
 What is it for open science?
 Mark up our grant proposals, future reuse
 Semantic bibliography
 This was the first half of that project - https://abstract-poetry.fly.dev/bibliography it related various references to each other so you could see the global narrative. We never built out the ability to annotate each of the papers and how the related to the paper, or to add papers necessarily. (We have a more exploratory /searchy version of this at abstract-poetry.fly.dev/search which can more document a search process.
@@ Line 191: / Line 195: @@
 Tremendous value vision, sustainable overhead?
 Finding the right structure

Lutters at 15:36, 13 November 2022

2022-11-13T15:36:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:36, 13 November 2022
Line 187:		Line 187:
	Mark up our grant proposals, future reuse		Mark up our grant proposals, future reuse
	Semantic bibliography		Semantic bibliography
			This was the first half of that project - https://abstract-poetry.fly.dev/bibliography it related various references to each other so you could see the global narrative. We never built out the ability to annotate each of the papers and how the related to the paper, or to add papers necessarily. (We have a more exploratory /searchy version of this at abstract-poetry.fly.dev/search which can more document a search process.

	Tremendous value vision, sustainable overhead?		Tremendous value vision, sustainable overhead?
	Finding the right structure		Finding the right structure

EllieDeSota at 15:36, 13 November 2022

2022-11-13T15:36:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:36, 13 November 2022
Line 191:		Line 191:
	Maintaining semantic bibliography for a grant is a great form of legitimate peripheral participation		Maintaining semantic bibliography for a grant is a great form of legitimate peripheral participation
	We plan to try this out for preprints in climate. Sensemaking structure to 15,000 refs		We plan to try this out for preprints in climate. Sensemaking structure to 15,000 refs



			=== DAY 2 ===
			question how can we use AI processing to discover non-explicit connections?

			- claim - the simplest job to get here is to create an index.

			question what are the venues where we can use open/interdisciplinary science?

			- evidence - women for open climate already exists and would would support this

			claim - we conceptualize inter-disciplinarity as multiple groups doing their primary research together.

			- evidence - (counter to truth of claim) Django as an example. This is collaboration btwn website builders making the infrastructure. Or scikitlearn etc. None of these are collaboration on their primary activity.

			- question - how might we ensure that these groups can collaborate on projects that aren't their direct work?

			claim - there is a disconnect between the team level incentives and the global level need for collaborative infrastructure

			- evidence synthesis centers couldn't resolve this algorithmically, and so simply needed to create a space where everyone came in to resolve the connections.

			Centralized pool for resources - the university used to have machine labs or computing centers meaning that the university cuts it back bc its too costly

			- Documenting these stories.

			claim - Teaching mission of the university is missing, I think they should engage in teaching during setting up these resources.

			- evidence - super computing centers used to do this, but then get's lost.

			Research Software Engineering groups -

			- They get attached to grants and become the software engineering groups.

			- evidence - the escience program in UK moved into software sustainability institute.

			- - There was an atmosphere that this was super interesting vs a dedicated national service.

			- evidence - the grid - came out of particle physics. Everyone needs to buy into it. It's been largely overtaken by major software companies.

			claim - libraries have attempted to make sure that you can manage all the different data but scientists need to know super deeply what the data is in itself, and a library can't actually provide this service. You NEED domain specialists. Similarly, there can't just be a 'random' person who is focused on integrating data -> they won't be able to give you this info.

			- evidence - how platforms emerge. Coring + tipping. The breadth of view is so large that they aren't going to spot the core of the data.

			- evidence - cambridge at the institutional level can enforce data sharing. BUT sharing it isn't necessarily what makes it useful.

			- Claim - we're not making the most of the networks that we have right now, it feels like you need a single person who has the knowledge to share and integrate data to the 'institutional' repository and then the institutional repository can be integrated at the more global level.

			- is there not enough interest for this to happen?

			- claim - main motivation for open source is to reduce the maintenance cost of things we build on in the future.

			- evidence - when you write a grant application, you write a lit review but then when you need to write an updated lit review -> you need to bring a 1.5 year out of date lit review that you haven't explored.

			OPEN QUESTIONS -

			- How do we identify the goldilocks level - wide enough infrastructure to allow for everyone to be on the infrastructure, and narrow enough for specific groups to be able to customize to their ideal needs.

			- evidence - data analysis, genome searching, these are places where everyone from many disciplines come together to ensure that you have a shared tech which brings ppl together.

Lutters at 15:35, 13 November 2022

2022-11-13T15:35:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:35, 13 November 2022
Line 186:		Line 186:
	What is it for open science?		What is it for open science?
	Mark up our grant proposals, future reuse		Mark up our grant proposals, future reuse

	Semantic bibliography		Semantic bibliography
	Tremendous value vision, sustainable overhead?		Tremendous value vision, sustainable overhead?
	Finding the right structure		Finding the right structure
			Maintaining semantic bibliography for a grant is a great form of legitimate peripheral participation
			We plan to try this out for preprints in climate. Sensemaking structure to 15,000 refs

Lutters at 15:32, 13 November 2022

2022-11-13T15:32:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:32, 13 November 2022
Line 162:		Line 162:
	MIT look-it, psychology		MIT look-it, psychology

	3.)		3.) INFRASTRUCTURE
	research external to academica		research external to academica
	crowdsourced science, what happend to that?		crowdsourced science, what happend to that?
Line 180:		Line 180:
	Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2008). How companies become platform leaders. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(28).		Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2008). How companies become platform leaders. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(28).
	Too wide a view,		Too wide a view,
	Need one person in each department that understands and can ~~traslate~~ that discipline, and something networking them together		Need one person in each department that understands and can translate that discipline, and something networking them together

			4.) MOTIVATION - FUTURE SELVES
			Motivation for FLOSS, reduce the maintenance cost now for anticipated future work
			What is it for open science?
			Mark up our grant proposals, future reuse

			Semantic bibliography
			Tremendous value vision, sustainable overhead?
			Finding the right structure

Lutters at 15:25, 13 November 2022

2022-11-13T15:25:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:25, 13 November 2022
Line 178:		Line 178:
	Domain scientist expertise =/= meta data		Domain scientist expertise =/= meta data
	Platform emergence - core & tipping		Platform emergence - core & tipping
			Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2008). How companies become platform leaders. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(28).
			Too wide a view,
			Need one person in each department that understands and can traslate that discipline, and something networking them together

Lutters at 15:23, 13 November 2022

2022-11-13T15:23:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:23, 13 November 2022
Line 129:		Line 129:

	- Didn't really mention papers once!		- Didn't really mention papers once!

			>>> DAY #2 RUNNING

			1.) STRUCTURE & USE
			IPCC -> claims obsidian
			beyond info artecure
			holy scripture
			find new connections
			index
			venues
			women for open climate
			NAS reports

			oil exploration & production
			well logs

			2.) MOTIVATION
			indisciplinary doing primary science together
			infrastructure vs. primary science
			front line science vs. backstage
			FAIR, need joint infrastructure
			pushing upstream
			data accessibility
			desci / halogen
			community structure, customizable, constrained
			paper replication

			synthesis study <<< STILL CAN STUDY THIS
			karen baker not just PIs, get right level on team
			edge researchers do the actual work core business doesn't care about
			funding on topics PIS don't care about
			MIT look-it, psychology

			3.)
			research external to academica
			crowdsourced science, what happend to that?
			Infrastrucutre
			research librarian / career path / dev
			infrastructure -- machine shop, glassblowers, super computer centers
			Pooled resources
			The SW people
			eSci UK - roles $ sw sustainability institutes

			"when infrastructure becomes a research project itself vs. a resource for community often drifts off"
			The GRID - Physics
			Libraries - pandisciplinarity
			Not aware of "embedded librarian" as a thing.
			Domain scientist expertise =/= meta data
			Platform emergence - core & tipping