Publishing Group/Meeting 10-6-05
What kinds of information do we want to share?
- characterization of parts
- standards of characterization
- operating conditions
- ideas about how to engineer biology
- i.e. idempotent assembly
- i.e. abstraction hierarchies
- process of design, decisions, tools, rational (comics?)
- documentation of why people made the design decisions they did
- to avoid reinventing the wheel
- critiques, comments, reviews, feedback
- successful applications
- societal issues
What features do we want to see in publishing mediums?
- publishing versions
- writing up of the same data/ideas for different target audiences
- publishing collections that can pick up works from other places and push out works to other places (like journals)
- open access
- mechanisms for collaboration
- useful for establishing community standards
- RFC's (request for comments) to get feedback on proposals
- wiki - anyone can contribute, establish community consensus on a topic
- peer review?
- thumbs up/down rating system
- open reviews
- signed reviews
- author responses/revisions
Methods for sharing
- permanent repository for information with an unchanging handle
- done at the institutional level
- fixed access?
- anyone can contribute to a writeup on wiki page
- the person who writes down the idea is not necessarily the person who came up with the idea
- no longer a static document that you can reference
- coordination of DSpace and wiki publishing methods
- how can we do this?
- Amazon.com style ratings and comments
- RFC (request for comment)
- How do we structure things to attract the very best people to this community? Do we want to convert folks, or do we want create an environment that just attracts new folks?
- May find applicable history/lessons from C. elegans research origins and molecular biology debut.
- As SB efforts grow, MIT-style community may not be universally adopted