Scientific data represents a significant portion of the linked open data cloud and scientists stand to benefit from the data fusion capability this will afford. Publishing linked data into the cloud, however, does not ensure the required reusability. Publishing has requirements of provenance, quality, credit, attribution and methods to provide the reproducibility that enables validation of results. In this paper we make the case for a scientific data publication model on top of linked data and introduce the notion of Research Objects as first class citizens for sharing and publishing. Highlights? We identify and characterise different aspects of reuse and reproducibility. ? We examine requirements for such reuse. ? We propose a scientific data publication model that layers on top of linked data publishing.

/pdf/why-linked-data-is-not-enough-for-scientists-5901t4ovyx.pdf

Why linked data is not enough for scientists

Research on practices to share and reuse data will inform the design of infrastructure to support data collection, management, and discovery in the long tail of science and technology. These are research domains in which data tend to be local in character, minimally structured, and minimally documented. We report on a ten-year study of the Center for Embedded Network Sensing (CENS), a National Science Foundation Science and Technology Center. We found that CENS researchers are willing to share their data, but few are asked to do so, and in only a few domain areas do their funders or journals require them to deposit data. Few repositories exist to accept data in CENS research areas.. Data sharing tends to occur only through interpersonal exchanges. CENS researchers obtain data from repositories, and occasionally from registries and individuals, to provide context, calibration, or other forms of background for their studies. Neither CENS researchers nor those who request access to CENS data appear to use external data for primary research questions or for replication of studies. CENS researchers are willing to share data if they receive credit and retain first rights to publish their results. Practices of releasing, sharing, and reusing of data in CENS reaffirm the gift culture of scholarship, in which goods are bartered between trusted colleagues rather than treated as commodities.

/pdf/if-we-share-data-will-anyone-use-them-data-sharing-and-reuse-41t2xlkifb.pdf

If we share data, will anyone use them? Data sharing and reuse in the long tail of science and technology.

Motivation: Advancing the search, publication and integration of bioinformatics tools and resources demands consistent machine-understandable descriptions. A comprehensive ontology allowing such descriptions is therefore required. Results: EDAM is an ontology of bioinformatics operations (tool or workflow functions), types of data and identifiers, application domains and data formats. EDAM supports semantic annotation of diverse entities such as Web services, databases, programmatic libraries, standalone tools, interactive applications, data schemas, datasets and publications within bioinformatics. EDAM applies to organizing and finding suitable tools and data and to automating their integration into complex applications or workflows. It includes over 2200 defined concepts and has successfully been used for annotations and implementations. Availability: The latest stable version of EDAM is available in OWL format from http://edamontology.org/EDAM.owl and in OBO format from http://edamontology.org/EDAM.obo. It can be viewed online at the NCBO BioPortal and the EBI Ontology Lookup Service. For documentation and license please refer to http://edamontology.org. This article describes version 1.2 available at http://edamontology.org/ EDAM_1.2.owl.

/pdf/edam-an-ontology-of-bioinformatics-operations-types-of-data-4wtfbfs0ma.pdf

EDAM: an ontology of bioinformatics operations, types of data and identifiers, topics and formats

Remote Data Checking (RDC) is a technique by which clients can establish that data outsourced at untrusted servers remains intact over time. RDC is useful as a prevention tool, allowing clients to periodically check if data has been damaged, and as a repair tool whenever damage has been detected. Initially proposed in the context of a single server, RDC was later extended to verify data integrity in distributed storage systems that rely on replication and on erasure coding to store data redundantly at multiple servers. Recently, a technique was proposed to add redundancy based on network coding, which offers interesting tradeoffs because of its remarkably low communication overhead to repair corrupt servers.Unlike previous work on RDC which focused on minimizing the costs of the prevention phase, we take a holistic look and initiate the investigation of RDC schemes for distributed systems that rely on network coding to minimize the combined costs of both the prevention and repair phases. We propose RDC-NC, a novel secure and efficient RDC scheme for network coding-based distributed storage systems. RDC-NC mitigates new attacks that stem from the underlying principle of network coding. The scheme is able to preserve in an adversarial setting the minimal communication overhead of the repair component achieved by network coding in a benign setting. We implement our scheme and experimentally show that it is computationally inexpensive for both clients and servers.

/pdf/remote-data-checking-for-network-coding-based-distributed-1kz3lvzfkz.pdf

Remote data checking for network coding-based distributed storage systems

As information and communication technology has become pervasive in our society, we are increasingly dependent on both digital data and repositories that provide access to and enable the use of such resources. Repositories must earn the trust of the communities they intend to serve and demonstrate that they are reliable and capable of appropriately managing the data they hold.

/pdf/the-trust-principles-for-digital-repositories-16zsagr7nd.pdf

The TRUST Principles for digital repositories

This document is a technical Recommended Practice for use in developing a broader consensus on what is required for an archive to provide permanent, or indefinite Long Term, preservation of digital information. This Recommended Practice establishes a common framework of terms and concepts which
make up an Open Archival Information System (OAIS). It allows existing and future archives to be more meaningfully compared and contrasted. It provides a basis for further standardization within an archival context and it should promote greater vendor awareness of, and support of, archival requirements.
CCSDS has changed the classification of Reference Models from Blue (Recommended Standard) to Magenta (Recommended Practice). Through the process of normal evolution, it is expected that expansion, deletion, or
modification of this document may occur. This Recommended Practice is therefore subject to CCSDS document management and change control procedures, which are defined in the Procedures Manual for the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems. 
Current issue updates document based on input from user community (note). Current versions of CCSDS documents are maintained at the CCSDS Web site: http://www.ccsds.org/

/pdf/reference-model-for-an-open-archival-information-system-oais-1ns1gnsa7z.pdf

Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System (OAIS)

This document is a technical Recommendation to use as the basis for providing audit and certification of the trustworthiness of digital repositories. It provides a detailed specification of criteria by which digital repositories shall be audited. The OAIS Reference Model contained a roadmap which included the need for a certification standard. The initial work was to be carried out outside CCSDS and then brought back into CCSDS to take into the standard.
In 2003, Research Libraries Group (RLG) and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) created a joint task force to specifically address digital repository certification. That task force published Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification: Criteria and Checklist (TRAC—reference [B3]), on which this Recommended Practice is based. Through the process of normal evolution, it is expected that expansion, deletion, or modification of this document may occur. This Recommended Practice is therefore subject to CCSDS document management and change control procedures, which are defined in the Procedures Manual for the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems. Current versions of CCSDS documents are maintained at the CCSDS Web site: http://www.ccsds.org/

/pdf/audit-and-certification-of-trustworthy-digital-repositories-ppfj5and08.pdf

Navigation Office

Papers

Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System (OAIS)

Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories: Recommended Practice, Issue 1