John Dupuis
E-Science, Science 2.0, Open Science -
Good post. - Joe
err e-science = science + grid, science 2.0 = science + web 2.0, open science = science + open access. Almost. I would say e-science is a bit bigger than just grid and data, to me it encompasses all of the issues of computer-enhanced science. - Richard Akerman
Of course, only librarians (and people working in libraries ;-) would get all worked up about definitions. Like I said, I can live with escience being the all-encompassing term. On the other hand, data+grid is sufficiently different from sci+w2 that it would be nice to have separate terms. I wish I could draw a Venn diagram in FF! - John Dupuis
I'd say open science = science + openNESS -- the application of free-as-in-speech and free-as-in-beer to the entire enterprise of science. At the, well, radical end is JCB's Open Notebook Science -- "no insider information". I'd put the other end of the spectrum at Open Access -- that's where Open Science begins, for me. - Bill Hooker
One more try from me: Open Science = Open Source (software) + Open Access (publishing) + Open Data (full release after OA publication, at minimum) + Open Standards (metadata/semantic web to make sense, and full use, of all the Open info) + Open Licencing (legal protection where needed, Public Domain otherwise). - Bill Hooker
Bill, that's perfect. Open Science is a kind of overlay on different aspects of science. - John Dupuis
I think I came closer to defining the minimal goal of Open Science yesterday in discussion with Gavin Bell at NPG: 'Improving science communication by making more of the material that supports the claims made in peer reviewed papers publically available, accessible, and re-useable' - it has the advantage of actually leaving the 'open' word out altogether and scares people less because it sounds incremental - Cameron Neylon
e-Science means different things to different people I think. The e-Science program in the UK was very much about Grid computing so people associate those together. e-Science and Science 2.0 are necessary tools for achieving the goals of Open Science. So I almost see e-Science as technical tools and Science 2.0 as social tools - Cameron Neylon
@Cameron: I like your version (defining minimal aims) better than mine (an attempt at an overall definition -- probably always doomed). One quibble: "improving" and especially "more" both leave too much wiggle room. "Optimising" and "all"? I think it's better to be clear than to try not to scare people. - Bill Hooker
Thanks, Cameron. I agree with Bill that it's a very good way of defining the various terms. It's more or less what I was trying to get at (rather unsuccessfully, I guess) in my original post. - John Dupuis
Absolutele Dorothea - and it's an importat discussion to have. Bill, the wiggle room is quite deliberate. This is about getting something on the table that people can actually do today - as we move forward we aim to remove the qualifications. So as worded it is todays standard, as you would word it, it is tomorrow's standard. - Cameron Neylon