Monitoring, Modeling, and Memory

Dynamics of Data and Knowledge in Scientific Cyberinfrastructures

Archive for the ‘News’ Category

Collaboration tools (shared by Jason Schultz)

Posted by dribes on April 8, 2011

Jason Schultz (UC Berkeley, Law) shared a series of tools he has been using for collaboration and to support qual. research. Links below:

 

David, Geoff,

Great to talk today. I will set up a bSpace project for us and issue logins, but I thought I’d also share my list of collaborative data sharing tools I’ve found. I would love to hear if your MMM group has any thoughts about them:

# Dedoose

* http://www.dedoose.com/

# Figshare
<http://figshare.com>

* http://figshare.com/ <http://figshare.com>

# Microsoft Azure Data Market

* https://datamarket.azure.com/

# Fluxdata

* http://www.fluxdata.org/default.aspx
* Fluxdata is “a curated site for exchanging scientific data and
papers within a small scientific community. Although the sight is
open for anyone to read, data contributions are made by a small
scientific community, and collaboration is primarily through
scientific papers. Deb is the curator for the site. Datasets have
terms of use and are only available to approved users, and
publications must be approved. Publication is available through
the site. The publication process initiates an approval workflow.
The site has a blog. The blog is used to push information about
the site. I also saw a few blogs that were personal accounts of
events.”

# CommentSpace

* http://www.commentspace.net/
* Video:
http://vis.berkeley.edu/papers/commentspace/video/CommentSpaceVideoFigure.mov
* “Commentspace.net is a community collaboration environment. It’s
primary goal is to promote new insights, discovered and shared by
the community, about proposed subject areas. Subject areas are
described though interactive visualizations, including timelines,
graphs, scatter graphs, and more. The community is encouraged to
comment, refute, or even post additional evidence.”

# InfoChimps

* http://www.infochimps.com/datasets

Best,
Jason

Posted in Collaborative coding, News, People | Leave a Comment »

Data, data, everywhere…

Posted by Paul N. Edwards on January 22, 2011

We’ve been thinking mainly about data in science, with its associated problems of storing, finding, and forgetting. But it’s not just science.

Here’s an article about explosive data growth in government, and how much it’s costing us:

Our nation is drowning in data. At any given time, federal agencies use more electronic storage units than could fill every NFL stadium from Oakland to Foxboro. At last count, the US government owns or leases at least 2100 data centers, and spends about half of its multi-billion dollar IT budget on digital storage. The United States Census Bureau alone maintains about 2560 terabytes of information — more data than is contained in all the academic libraries in America, and the equivalent of about 50 million four-door filing cabinets of text documents. In addition to the federal deluge, tens of thousands of municipal and state facilities maintain data ranging from driver’s-license pics to administrative e-mails — or at least they’re required to.

An interesting point raised by this article is that even as storage burdens become crushing, human beings to help with organizing and finding data are losing their jobs, especially at the state and municipal levels. Data.gov has big press and big ambitions, but much of the stuff lower down in the system is rotting away.

Posted in News | Leave a Comment »

Science review of A Vast Machine

Posted by Paul N. Edwards on January 15, 2011

A review by Richard Somerville just came out. You can see it here.

In the same review, Somerville discusses philosopher Eric Winsberg’s new book Science in the Age of Computer Simulation. Winsberg is one of a few intrepid philosophers who have taken up the challenge of understanding the logic of simulation and modeling, which lie at the core of modern science (and which I discuss extensively in A Vast Machine.)

From the review:

Winsberg suggests that philosophy of [contemporary] science… ought to concern itself with the subject of simulating complex phenomena within existing theory, as opposed to its traditional focus on the creation of novel scientific theories. Winsberg concludes,

[W]hat we might call the ontological relationship between simulations and experiments is quite complicated. Is it true that simulations are, after all, a particular species of experiment? I have tried to argue against this claim, while at the same time insisting that the differences between simulation and experiment are more subtle than some of the critics of the claim have suggested. Most important, I have tried to argue that we should disconnect questions about the identity of simulations and experiments from questions of the epistemic power of simulations.

Philosophy has been trailing the actual state of science for a long time now, so it’s good to see this kind of work coming out.

I’m afraid, though, that it’s still trailing the bleeding edge — we’ve entered an age of data-intensive science, which presents its own epistemic challenges: for example, how much does theory matter when statistical analysis of huge datasets reveals strong correlations? If predictive power is your main goal, sometimes data can take the place of explanation. (Not sure I actually believe this, but it’s a compelling point of view.) Take a look at Hey et al., The Fourth Paradigm if this kind of thing interests you.

Posted in News, Reflections, Reviews, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

American Scientist review of A Vast Machine

Posted by Paul N. Edwards on August 1, 2010

This review of my book is really nice!!!

Posted in News, Reviews, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Steve Schneider, a giant of climate science, has died

Posted by Paul N. Edwards on July 22, 2010

The climate scientist Stephen H. Schneider — my colleague, mentor, and friend for almost 18 years — died unexpectedly on Tuesday while on a flight from Stockholm to London. He was 65. He apparently suffered a deep vein thrombosis and then a heart attack. His wife, Terry Root, said that his doctors had just taken him off of warfarin (an anti-clotting agent) while he was on prednisone, so his death was perhaps preventable.

I last saw Steve at the Copenhagen climate conference this past December. I had dinner with him and Terry twice. We spent some time teaching a mixed group of Stanford and Univ. of Michigan students in the early mornings. I attended a crowded signing for his new book Science as a Contact Sport. As they have for decades, reporters called frequently; he would always answer with a clear, quotable statement — and honest to the bone, as ever. Steve took me to see Al Gore, a longtime personal friend. Even in the shadow of Climategate and the Copenhagen meeting’s failure to deliver a breakthrough treaty, it was a happy time.

Steve was an amazingly energetic and prolific scientist and author, as well as a mentor to hundreds, perhaps even thousands of people like me. His death is a terrible blow to climate science and to the world. Steve was a giant, a brilliant scientist with a monumental personality, yet one suffused with a tremendous generosity, gentleness, and warmth. He lived life to the fullest and took every opportunity to teach anyone willing to listen. Steve did more with his one life than most of us could do in three. I learned more from him than from anyone else I’ve ever worked with.

My book A Vast Machine is dedicated to him. I’m only glad that it was published in time for him to see that dedication before he died. I always thought I’d get a chance to celebrate it with him in person. Now that day will never come. Especially after losing another close colleague, Leigh Star, just this past March, I’ll be reeling from Steve’s death for many months.

Posted in News | Leave a Comment »

G.E.R. Lloyd on disciplines

Posted by gbowker on July 14, 2010

 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 24, No. 100.
         Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
                Submit to: humanist@lists.digitalhumanities.org

        Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 07:42:02 +0100
        From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty@mccarty.org.uk>
        Subject: disciplines

Those interested in the historical dimension of disciplinarity will be
glad to know about G. E. R. Lloyd's latest book, Disciplines in the
Making (Oxford, 2009), in which he examines the development of
philosophy, mathematics, history, medicine, art, law, religion and
science from their beginnings, using comparative materials, chiefly from
ancient Greece and China. In the last footnote of the book
(unfortunately omitted by the publisher, here recovered from Lloyd
himself), he notes that,

> Lip-service is sometimes paid to the advantages of a mastery of a
> variety of disciplines, and polymaths such as Leonardo and Newton are
> held up as models of human genius. But when it comes to implementing
> programmes of collaborative research, the complaint is still often
> made that each of the participants approaches the problems too much
> influenced by the particular ways they were taught to handle them in
> their original specialisations.  (not on p. 181)

The great examples we have of major collaborative undertakings from the
sciences -- greatest of all, perhaps, the Manhattan Project -- involved
experts cooperating, sometimes made to cooperate by a commanding leader
such as Oppenheimer. At our local level, we see (but so far have not
studied) the beginnings of the sort of mastery Lloyd here speaks of, in
the settings and situations the digital humanities are capable of
bringing about. Lloyd's book (unsurprisingly when you think about it) is
a sobering, and thrilling, (re)minder of how large and complex the world
of disciplinarity is.

The story of incommesurability among ways of knowing and communicating
is told e.g. in the story of the Tower of Babel, with its prior vision
of one universal language, or we might say, one universal discipline.
But before that story was told, and ever since, poets and scholars have
not stopped triangulating on that which can never be reached except in
such visions. The scholar's way is exemplified magnificiently by Lloyd's
book. Read it tonight!

Posted in Current Reading, News, People, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Bietz et al JCSCW paper

Posted by archer on July 9, 2010

I just saw the new Bietz, Baumer, and Lee article, “Synergizing in Cyberinfrastructure Development” in JCSCW. See http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10606-010-9114-y

I’m kind of meh about their concept of synergy overall, but did find it usefully employed in the following paragraph (pg. 34):

Others have pointed to the tension between “emergence” and “intention” as being a key challenge in infrastructure development (Edwards et al. 2007; Ribes and Finholt 2007). The synergizing lens allows us to see how they need not be mutually exclusive. Because so much of the work of cyberinfrastructure development involves leveraging and aligning networks of relationships, developers are involved in ongoing decisions about with whom (or with which entities) to interact (leveraging), and how those relationships will work (aligning). GBMF, for example, is more concerned with whom the infrastructure will serve and how CAMERA will relate to other infrastructures than it is with exactly what the CAMERA artifacts will look like. At the same time, developers of cyberinfrastructure also have to manage intentionality from multiple sources and directions. This multiplicity of stakeholders is a key feature of infrastructures. The properties of an infrastructure emerge from the aggregation of multiple, ongoing synergizing-related decisions. Emergence is not accidental, but perhaps unpredictable because of the variety and complexity of intentions.

I think it is helpful to reconcile emergence and intentionality in that way, getting us past simplistic arguments of waiting for emergence or intentionally planning everything. I also find this interesting for my dissertation work on requirements analysis. Requirements are instances of intentionality, yet they are not the only effect of the software. How then do groups think about emergent properties when they are planning? And it is self-contradictory to try to make emergent affects be “requirements.” What do others think: are emergent properties essentially ones that are unpredictable? or can it sometimes be anticipated, given various intentional efforts that one hopes will assemble in a certain way?

Posted in News | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Steve Easterbrook on collaborative rhythms

Posted by archer on July 3, 2010

I was talking with Steve Easterbrook about the collaborative rhythms work a couple of days ago, and he found it interesting and wrote it up in a blog post. Steve is a computer science professor at U Toronto studying software engineering in climate models; also on my dissertation committee.

He adds another nice NASA example from the time when he worked there.

http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=1748

Posted in News | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Upgrade to EndNote X4 and Relax…

Posted by archer on June 16, 2010

Another EndNote is coming!

Their feature about importing PDFs or folders of PDFs sounds right in line with one of our recommendations, although I don’t know if had it in the pipeline already. Group comparison also looks really nice, an obvious shortcoming in the previous versions.

It’s still not clear to me how easy or natural collaborative work with bibliographies is though.

I’ll plan to try out the trial.

Announcement link here

Posted in News | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Long-term Matters in Collaborative Development

Posted by archer on June 4, 2010

For the collaborative rhythm folks this should be very relevant, if you haven’t seen it already:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/f603078tj32n677u/

Karasti, H., K. Baker, et al. (2010). “Infrastructure Time: Long-term Matters in Collaborative Development.” Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

This paper addresses the collaborative development of information infrastructure for supporting data-rich scientific collaboration. Studying infrastructure development empirically not only in terms of spatial issues but also, and equally importantly, temporal ones, we illustrate how the long-term matters. Our case is about the collaborative development of a metadata standard for an ecological research domain. It is a complex example where standards are recognized as one element of infrastructure and standard-making efforts include integration of semantic work and software tools development. With a focus on the temporal scales of short-term and long-term, we analyze the practices and views of the main parties involved in the development of the standard. Our contributions are three-fold: 1) extension of the notion of infrastructure to more explicitly include the temporal dimension; 2) identification of two distinct temporal orientations in information infrastructure development work, namely ‘project time’ and ‘infrastructure time’, and 3) association of related development orientations, particularly ‘continuing design’ as a  development orientation that recognizes ‘infrastructure time’. We conclude by highlighting the need to enrich understandings of temporality in CSCW, particularly towards longer time scales and more diversified temporal hybrids in collaborative infrastructure development. This work draws attention to the manifold ramifications that ‘infrastructure time’, as an example of more extended temporal scales, suggests for CSCW and e-Research infrastructures.

Posted in News | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.