Discussion List Archives

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Summary of IT Online WG discussions thus far

Howard, many thanks for your comments on the summary
and your preferred priorities. Let me condense what
I see as your main pointsand add a few comments of my
own... if I've missed something let me know immediately.

1. You mention the need for IT Online to be financially
viable and not to erode other IUCr sources of income.
Although this WG didn't have this issue in its brief, I
believe we all share that concern.  The longevity of
such a service will depend on the viability of the server.
The IUCr is a small but successful scientific union
because it usually has a forward-thinking but realistic
business approach to its services and journals. What we
propose will need to maintain that approach.

2. You favour getting a couple of IT volumes online first
as prototypes and exemplars for other volumes. That makes
sense and, considering the limited resources at Chester,
is how its likely to happen anyway. Vol A is a clear early
candidate... and perhaps C (based on the user requests).
Vol G, by its very nature, is also very amenable to the
web approach.

3. Your point about IT Online as an "evolving resource"
is in my view very pertinent. The "semantic world" of the
web is rapidly evolving and its clear that to maintain
competivity data delivery will need to be flexible while
maintaining absolute integrity of the data provided. Our
discussions so far have alluded to the balance between
innovation and stability in providing online services.
For example, the GNU/source-forge approach to supporting
"open" software and services encourages participation
and innovation but has a strong caveate-emptor element.
A single centrally supported server approach may be more
secure and stable but is not as conducive to innovation
and involves a different business plan. Perhaps we should
experiment with both initially?

4. Brian McMahon and I have already discussed the prospect
of future editions of Vol G.... even before the first has
been published. CIF work exists that cannot be in this volume
and, of course, this will always be the case in an evolving
field.  Clearly volumes such as G, that deal with electronic
data and processes, must be exclusively web-based in the
future. I'm not prepared to argue the case for the CIF format
over XML at this stage, because the key technology (as you
have alluded to) is the data DEFINITION and the dictionaries.
Converting CIF data to XML, and the reverse, is trivial
provided there are comprehensive and carefully-built
ontologies to support that exchange process.

Thank you for your input. Hopefully this exchange will
stimulate others to input some general comments as well.

Cheers
Syd
------
Professor Sydney R. Hall
School Biomedical & Chemical Sciences
University of Western Australia
Crawley, 6009  AUSTRALIA.
Ph: +61 (8) 6488 2725
Fx: +61 (8) 6488 1118
"Data data everywhere but not a thought to think!" - Theodore Roszak


On 25/04/2005, at 3:54 AM, Howard Einspahr wrote:

> Syd and fellow WG members,
>      First, about the recent summary of ITOWG
> comments, it seems to be an accurate record of the
> traffic I have seen since I was added to the WG.  I
> also found earlier comments illuminating and helpful
> in my thinking.
>      Second, I would like to make two further
> observations. One is somewhat related to my earlier
> comments, which end the recent summary.  The other
> relates to the CD of the IT G Online draft.
>      One of the things I've noted about the collected
> comments and suggestions, mine included, is that they
> sometimes do not overtly pay sufficient attention to
> an overall business plan for IT Online.  The
> enterprise is to be undertaken for the good of
> crystallography, yes, but it has also got to pay for
> itself and it would be better if it were a net
> generator of revenue for IUCr.  So we must be careful,
> for example, about institutions purchasing the service
> and providing access to its members.  Of course, this
> is not a new issue; it must also be faced with our
> journals.  It is also true that some of the volumes of
> IT will be more in demand online than others and it
> would be better to concentrate on those and use the
> experience to help with conceptualizing online
> versions of the others.  The early focus on IT A is a
> reassuring indication of movement in just that
> direction.  I also suggest that as we develop novel
> uses and adaptations of IT Online for our own work, we
> will also be generating new and marketable uses of IT
> Online for others and the non-IUCr journals I
> mentioned in my earlier comments are just one example.
>  I guess the point is that IT Online must be thought
> of as an evolving resource and the direction of that
> evolution will be one to which users will contribute.
>      Finally, I see both IT F and G as particularly
> useful from my perspective in macromolecular
> crystallography and Acta Cryst. F.  I also see them as
> presenting different challenges and opportunities.
> For example, I think the union should do everything in
> its power to promote the use of CIF and I am
> particularly interested in encouraging wider usage of
> mmCIF.  I see in the CD I was sent for evaluation the
> makings of a tool to help with greater dissemination
> of CIF and, if it isn't already, it might be better to
> think of G Online as just such a tool, as more than
> just a volume of IT Online.  Because of the fact that
> mmCIF is in such a dynamic development phase at this
> point (again from my perspective), I suggest that, as
> we consider how G Online should marketed, we include
> the prospect of providing customers with regular
> updates or revisions.  We might also consider tweaking
> the initial version to target it to customers we want
> as new users of CIF like software developers, etc.,
> give it to them (for a limited period, perhaps), and
> charge for upgrades or revisions instead.
>
> I realize time for discussion is drawing to a close.
> I hope this is of help.
>
> Howard
> ===========================================
> --- Sydney Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I am conscious of the rapidly approaching congress
>> and
>> likelihood that there will be diminishing time to
>> spend on
>> working group recommendations as we get into the
>> northern
>> hemisphere summer. To gather my own thoughts on this
>> task
>> I have reviewed what has been said thus far and
>> drafted a
>> summary of the main points made. This is not a
>> complete
>> record of our communications but I think that it
>> captures
>> the major issues and suggestions. If you think any
>> important points are missing please let me know.
>>
>> I hope the attached summary document will stimulate
>> some
>> additional ideas and suggestions on ways to present
>> IT data
>> online. If it does not I will have to assume that we
>> done
>> our collective best on this issue, and I will work
>> with
>> Nicola to formulate some recommendations for
>> circulation
>> and your approval.
>>
>> I would appreciate a response to the attached
>> summary,
>> with your preferred recommendations, by May 1st.
>>
>> Many thanks
>> Syd
>> ------
>> Professor Sydney R. Hall
>> School Biomedical & Chemical Sciences
>> University of Western Australia
>> Crawley, 6009  AUSTRALIA.
>> Ph: +61 (8) 6488 2725
>> Fx: +61 (8) 6488 1118
>> "Data data everywhere but not a thought to think!" -
>> Theodore Roszak
>>
>>
>
>