Difference between revisions of "E-lab notebooks"
From CURATEcamp
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Notes by Lynn Yarmey: | Notes by Lynn Yarmey: | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| + | == e-Lab Notebooks and OMERO - image curation (http://openmicroscopy.org/site) | ||
| − | relationship with DMPs | + | Discussed relationship with DMPs |
| − | + | *Issues:* | |
| − | + | *people keep notebooks for many different purposes, have separate styles | |
| − | + | *extracting something from a notebook is dicey to start - so be clear on goal. For 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: | Examples: | ||
| − | + | *CERF (by Rescentris) | |
| − | + | *Cambridge Soft (owns ChemDraw) - downside, cost plus lots of backend infrastrcuture; somewhat of a layer over Word and Excel. Cambridgesoft was recently bought by Perkin Elmer | |
| − | + | *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 | Open Science vs. Other research approaches | ||
| − | + | Costs - how to compete with Amazon in terms of cost feasibility for basic file storage. | |
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 | ||
| + | *cloud-based applications | ||
| − | + | Additional criteria | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
* uptake | * uptake | ||
Revision as of 00:47, 16 August 2011
Notes by Lynn Yarmey:
== e-Lab Notebooks and OMERO - image curation (http://openmicroscopy.org/site)
Discussed relationship with DMPs
- Issues:*
- people keep notebooks for many different purposes, have separate styles
- extracting something from a notebook is dicey to start - so be clear on goal. For 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; somewhat of a layer over Word and Excel. Cambridgesoft was recently bought by Perkin Elmer
- 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 for basic file storage.
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
