Open mozfest-bot opened 8 years ago
brandonnodnarb
commented
8 years ago If this seems a bit nebulous, let me know. I'm happy to answer any questions and/or provide a bit more detail.
Also, I found out this morning that I won't need a stipend to attend.
brandonnodnarb
commented
7 years ago Hi @arlissc & @KirstieJane, the following is an amended, hopefully less amorphous, version --
The yin and yang of the session will be discussing the current capabilities of the open web, as it pertains to scientific discourse, and contrast that with the tools and technologies needed to bridge the gap between those available and an idealised version of the Giant Global Graph of Knowledge -- i.e. the G3K.
As a simplified example, using fairly common technologies and frameworks to establish a common frame of reference for discussion, consider what would be needed to integrate: 1) a reproducible interface (i.e. Jupyter Notebooks), 2) HPC processing power (i.e. AWS, IBM cluster services, etc.), 3) "big" data and/or Linked Open Data connectivity (i.e. the LOD cloud), 4) visual workflow or computation engines (i.e. Taverna, Kepler), and 5) the vocabularies and ontologies (i.e. semantic models) necessary to facilitate machine-aided scientific discovery?
This session is a platform to discuss a common vision of technologies supporting the advancement of science.
The initial part of the session will be a small group, or one-to-one, discussion/exercise to help illustrate the implicit aspects of communication, and how that might be coneyed in electgronic communication, data sharing, data re-use, etc. What are the aspects of the communication that are essential, what are the aspects that are obligatory, and which ones are underspecified in hopes that the other "being" will have a common semantic reference for those entities?
The second portion of the session involves a community driven technical deep dive of sorts, where we, as a community, discuss tools, code, and our collective experiences with these artefacts, under the aegis of scientific communication and reproducability. Imagery ((sigh) possibly slides) will be provided here to help guide the discussion.
The third portion of the session will be earmarked for brainstorming and, time permitting, (very, very brief) road mapping, frameworks that are missing, needed, or forkable, as a way to impose a more tangible perspective on any potential future tasks.
Everyone is welcome! Bring your ideas and ingenuity.
Fewer participants allows for more personalised discussion, and perhaps transform into more of a working "lab" session. In general, as the amount of participants increases, the amount of time necessary for sharing and discussion will also increase.
I envision this depending more on the types of people who attend rather than the raw number. On one end of the spectrum, a more technical crowd may spawn a mini-hackfest; on "the" other end, it may be that the discussion is more focused on changing the mindset of scientists.
Many scenarios for progression are viable. I'm more excited about discussing these views with other interested participants.
Two main goals seem achievable for this session: 1) A common vision and a "roadmap" of tools or technologies which are either needed, or need to be connected (or integrated). This can range in expressivity from a piece of notebook paper to a huge shared conceptual diagram; and 2) The formation of a persistant group of like-minded individuals that are operating with a similar common vision in mind. This could perhaps be embodied as a Mozillafied version of a W3C working group. In an ideal world, this would also include some published artefact which could be shared/published and subsequently treated as a manifesto of sorts for the community.
[ ID ] e1ebd867-05ec-4ee9-947a-62faec4615c2
[ Submitter's Name ] brandon whitehead
[ Space ] science [ Secondary Space ] demystify
[ Format ] learning-lab, fireside
Description
The yin and yang of the session will be discussing the current capabilities of the open web, as it pertains to scientific discourse, and contrast that with the tools and technologies needed to bridge the gap between those available and an idealised version of the Giant Global Graph of Knowledge -- i.e. the G3K.
As a simplified example, using fairly common technologies and frameworks to establish a common frame of reference for discussion, consider what would be needed to integrate: 1) a reproducible interface (i.e. Jupyter Notebooks), 2) HPC processing power (i.e. AWS, IBM cluster services, etc.), 3) "big" data and/or Linked Open Data connectivity (i.e. the LOD cloud), 4) visual workflow or computation engines (i.e. Taverna, Kepler), and 5) the vocabularies and ontologies (i.e. semantic models) necessary to facilitate machine-aided scientific >b>discovery?
This session is a platform to discuss a common vision of technologies supporting the advancement of science.
Agenda
The session would involve an initial presentation or monologue to delve a bit deeper into the topic. This includes each of the facets described previously, as well as clearly delineating what is out of scope (for this discussion only). The majority of the remaining time would be geared towards a community driven technical deep dive of sorts, where we, as a community, discuss tools, code, and our collective experiences with these artefacts.
The remaining time would allow for brainstorming and, time permitting, road mapping, frameworks that are missing, needed, or forkable, as a way to impose a more tangible perspective on any potential future tasks.
The overall goal would be build interpersonal connections to facilitate a group of like-minded individuals that are operating with a similar common vision in mind. In an ideal world, this would also include some form of "roadmap" that could be shared/published and amended as needed.
Participants
Fewer participants would allow for more personalised discussion, and perhaps transform into more of a working "lab" session. In general, as the amount of participants increases, the amount of time necessary for sharing and discussion will also increase.
I have several ideas here. Without delving into each permutation, it seems prudent to ensure many scenarios for progression are viable. I envision this depending more on the types of people who attend rather than the raw number. On one end of the spectrum, a more technical crowd may spawn a mini-hackfest; on "the" other end, it may be that the discussion is more focused on changing the mindset of scientists.
I don't mean to be elusive here. I'm more excited about discussing these views with other interested people. As I have a bit of lecturing experience, I've learned to adapt as the situation presented is not always (if ever) the one planned.
Outcome
A reasonable outcome for me is a common vision and some sort of roadmap of tools or technologies which are either needed, or need to be connected (or integrated). This can range in expressivity from a piece of notebook paper to a huge shard conceptual diagram.
I would suggest a followup after some agreeable length of time to digest and personalise the discussion. Assuming there is interest, I would encourage a followup at some later date, again, agreeable by all (or the majority) involved, to further discuss ideas on how best to proceed as well as any progress.