Difference between revisions of "E-lab notebooks"
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
relationship with DMPs? | relationship with DMPs? | ||
− | issues | + | |
+ | issues: | ||
+ | |||
people keep notebooks for many different purposes, have separate styles | people keep notebooks for many different purposes, have separate styles | ||
xtracing something from a notebook is dicey to start - so be clear on goal | xtracing something from a notebook is dicey to start - so be clear on goal | ||
Line 12: | Line 14: | ||
consideration - can you prove provenance from burned CD copy? | consideration - can you prove provenance from burned CD copy? | ||
− | selection criteria | + | selection criteria: |
+ | |||
affordability | affordability | ||
ease of use | ease of use | ||
Line 21: | Line 24: | ||
curation components - export files, metadata standardization | curation components - export files, metadata standardization | ||
− | Examples | + | Examples: |
+ | |||
CERF (by Rescentris) | CERF (by Rescentris) | ||
Line 27: | Line 31: | ||
layers over Word and Excel | layers over Word and Excel | ||
cambridgesoft bought by Perk and Elmore (?) | cambridgesoft bought by Perk and Elmore (?) | ||
+ | |||
Wiki + Google docs | Wiki + Google docs | ||
digital lives study found big problems with legalities in cloud agreements, no | digital lives study found big problems with legalities in cloud agreements, no | ||
promises about longevity, security, etc. | promises about longevity, security, etc. | ||
− | Open Science vs. | + | Open Science vs. Other research approaches |
costs - how to compete with Amazon in terms of cost feasibility | costs - how to compete with Amazon in terms of cost feasibility | ||
Phil recommends cloud for virtual machines for pulling out the data from boxes under the desk | Phil recommends cloud for virtual machines for pulling out the data from boxes under the desk | ||
+ | |||
need applications that are compatible | need applications that are compatible | ||
cloud-based applications | cloud-based applications | ||
additional criteria | additional criteria | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | Issue - as soon as you export from a software, you are creating a representation that isn’t | + | * uptake |
− | + | * backend maintenance (in addition to production archival copy) | |
− | + | * files on disk | |
+ | |||
+ | Issue - as soon as you export from a software, you are creating a representation that isn’t usually round-tripable. So what exactly are you archiving? Tension between archival version and actual work |
Revision as of 00:41, 16 August 2011
Notes by Lynn Yarmey:
e-Lab Notebooks OMERO - image curation (http://openmicroscopy.org/site)
relationship with DMPs?
issues:
people keep notebooks for many different purposes, have separate styles xtracing something from a notebook is dicey to start - so be clear on goal example: patent suit, 7Mil to go through paper notebooks consideration - can you prove provenance from burned CD copy?
selection criteria:
affordability ease of use ease of access length of trial non-pharmaceutical-based needs to work for users curation components - export files, metadata standardization
Examples:
CERF (by Rescentris)
Cambridge Soft (owns ChemDraw) - downside, cost plus lots of backend infrastrcuture layers over Word and Excel cambridgesoft bought by Perk and Elmore (?)
Wiki + Google docs digital lives study found big problems with legalities in cloud agreements, no promises about longevity, security, etc.
Open Science vs. Other research approaches
costs - how to compete with Amazon in terms of cost feasibility
Phil recommends cloud for virtual machines for pulling out the data from boxes under the desk
need applications that are compatible cloud-based applications
additional criteria
- uptake
- backend maintenance (in addition to production archival copy)
- files on disk
Issue - as soon as you export from a software, you are creating a representation that isn’t usually round-tripable. So what exactly are you archiving? Tension between archival version and actual work