Definitions and Goals #113
Replies: 4 comments
-
Thanks @admercs for your input!! Since this topic is about definitions, I want to add to the record the following widely-adopted definitions for software:
These definitions have been well-established for a long time, so something should only be called open source when it meets these definitions. Otherwise, we would be causing confusing and diluting the meaning of the term. Related to this is the Open Source Hardware Definition maintained by the Open Source Hardware Association (OSHWA). It is just as widely used and established for hardware. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Wow, thanks @admercs! There is a lot to unpack there. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Obviously a definition of open science itself is important, so thought I would share the one that I like: "Open science is transparent and accessible knowledge that is shared and developed through collaborative networks" - Vicente-Saez & Martinez-Fuentes [2018] |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
The National Academies report “Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research” (https://doi.org/gfxzc4) says that open science “aims to ensure the free availability and usability of scholarly publications, the data that result from scholarly research, and the methodologies, including code or algorithms that were used to generate those data” — this definition focuses narrowly on the products of research… But of course, things are more complicated than it sounds, because science is embedded in the social systems of academia, national labs, etc., where researcher incentives need to be aligned with research values and practices. Currently they are not aligned with open science if we focus only on the products of research and associated metrics. @rmcgranaghan cites above a definition that addresses the socio-technical nature of the problem: “Open Science is transparent and accessible knowledge that is shared and developed through collaborative networks.” Notice the keywords: transparent – accessible – collaborative – networks This definition is focused on openness and connectivity, on how research is designed, performed, captured, and assessed. Not on the products! What is interesting is that to arrive at this definition the authors conducted an extensive systematic literature review with a database of 75 publications from 1985 to 2016, including official refereed journal articles and documents from intergovernmental organizations. They use a formal methodology for capturing the "genus" and "differentia" of open science, from the literature. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Dear Esteemed Colleagues,
I apologize if I am late to the discussion, but I am hoping we can clarify our definition of and goals for "open science" or what I prefer to call "free and open-source science" or FOSSci (adapting terminology from the FOSS community in computer science). In other words, licensing is critical in reducing barriers to IP use and promoting collaboration.
Building on [1], below are some potential goals, outcomes, or target domains for enhancing openness in FOSSci:
Much of this can be accomplished through a single cloud and/or on-prem (i.e., hybrid) platform based on Git. It would be great to develop API specifications or protocols for related services, as is done in the drone community. That way, anyone can build a service with the specified interfaces for interactive, possibly distributed, services.
Below are some existing efforts at EU/ESA to help inform TOPS. In the spirit of openness, it would be great to see more NASA + ESA collaboration on the topic. I am unaware of similar initiatives at JAXA, ISRO, or elsewhere, so please add relevant efforts to the list.
References
Thanks for the invite!
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions