Comments on: Open Data Dead on Arrival

By: Tweets that mention Open Data Dead on Arrival « Victoria Stodden -- Topsy.com

Tweets that mention Open Data Dead on Arrival « Victoria Stodden -- Topsy.com — Mon, 17 May 2010 01:59:26 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Eduardo R. Zugasti. Eduardo R. Zugasti said: Karl Popper: "Anyone who cannot speak simply and clearly should say nothing and continue to work until he can do so." http://bit.ly/dnqcHQ [...]

By: Will

Will — Sun, 16 May 2010 03:26:00 +0000

Getting most coders (and those who deal with data) to put things simply is just as difficult as getting businesspeople to speak plainly: “from now on” becomes “on a go-forward basis”, etc.

In coding, we have a UML forest of obfuscation before any actual work can be done, and a lot of the time, it doesn’t help at all.

So what’s getting in the way? It has to be ego. What technical argument is there? Speaking plainly does nothing for anyone’s inflated or delusional self-image, and by the same token, writing plain, readable code is anathema to the coder wanting to be seen as unapproachably brilliant.

Let’s hope a more modest culture can emerge in data management and coding. I’d very much like to see you get your wish, and have the simplest possible approach win.

By: Sage and the future of mathematics « Yet Another Mathblog

Sage and the future of mathematics « Yet Another Mathblog — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:36:05 +0000

[...] suggests that “it’s time for a major revision of the scientific method.” Also, Victoria Stodden argues one must “facilitate reproducibility. Without this data may be open, but will remain [...]

By: vcs

vcs — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:55:39 +0000

Neil, Thanks for the excellent comments. Data is different from facts in that a fact has the additional requirement of social acceptance – scientific facts are constructed through a process by which they become embedded in a body of knowledge we all draw upon. This is quite different from data – a series of raw numbers for example certainly qualifies as data but must go through additional processed to become accepted as fact. I argue these additional processes, often recorded in code, should be a simple to understand as possible and permit the reproducibility of results (the potential facts).

By: Morgan Langille

Morgan Langille — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:19:09 +0000

Great post. I am also a firm believer of releasing data as openly as possible. I recently launched a scientific data sharing website called BioTorrents.net, and would encourage anyone that wants to share their data check out that resource.

By: Neil

Neil — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:10:49 +0000

I really liked how you highlight the difference in scientific audiences. But aren’t data and facts one and the same? What we really need to communicate is information and knowledge.

E.g., there is the data series of tree-ring proxies for temperature. But in itself this doesn’t tell one anything. You need the context in which that data operates: that tree-rings respond thusly to warm periods, that we can use this to reconstruct the temperature back then, that this might indicate a change in climate from then to now …

I think we’re talking about the same thing, but I’m not sure about your terminology. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIKW