standardizing nanopublications
Tobias Kuhn
I am currently exploring how we could properly standardize the
nanopublication format.
The obvious standardization body would be the W3C, and I am checking
their documentation on the requirements and processes.
But at the same time I also want to ask around here. Specifically:
- Do you think standardizing nanopublications is a good idea / important
/ urgent?
- Do you think W3C is a good place for that, or do you have other
suggestions?
- Have you been involved in earlier/ongoing standardization efforts, and
could you share your experience?
- Would you be interested in joining such a standardization effort,
including the participation in discussions, calls, and document drafting?
I am curious to hear your thoughts on this! :)
Regards,
Tobias
Erik Schultes
> - Do you think standardizing nanopublications is a good idea / important / urgent?
It is certainly a good idea: I think there is no down side, and may be a lot of up sides.
It is important as it signals a growing maturity around the concept.
> - Do you think W3C is a good place for that, or do you have other suggestions?
However, we have also been exploring the idea that an appropriately constructed nanopub is conformant to the emerging FDO spec. How cool to have 2 standards (one in W3C and the other FDO) that can be aligned.
> - Have you been involved in earlier/ongoing standardization efforts, and could you share your experience?
- Using nanopubs for FIPs and FERs
- Driving the nanopub-as-FDO idea
> - Would you be interested in joining such a standardization effort, including the participation in discussions, calls, and document drafting?
- E
Erik Schultes
schu...@hedgehogresearch.info
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Nanopublications" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to nanopub-user...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nanopub-users/76860643-7261-4408-b5b0-73a032cdbd5e%40gmail.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Andrew George
I’ve been following nanopublications for some time, though I haven’t used them directly in my work. From what I understand, they hold significant potential as a foundational tool for evidence use across various domains.
I agree that standardizing the format is both important and timely, as it could greatly enhance interoperability and adoption. I’d be happy to contribute to the standardization process in any way that would be helpful, whether through discussions, calls, or document drafting.
Looking forward to hearing more about how this initiative develops!
Best,
Andrew
Andrew George, Ph.D.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nanopub-users/A51FED18-37CE-4FD0-9160-85C4B2D3AD46%40hedgehogresearch.info.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
George Patrinos
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nanopub-users/CAOAyAmcm0viLUth_kvFNWrghjaP43_Gw7%2BnG%3Dy3oavwHuVETfw%40mail.gmail.com.
Andrew George
Hello all,
This discussion inspired me to create a practical tool to demonstrate the potential of having standardization of the format. I’ve developed a custom GPT-based assistant that integrates the NanoPub Guidelines outlined in the working draft. This assistant is designed to streamline understanding and application of the guidelines, making it easier for users to engage with nanopublications effectively.
You can access the assistant here: NanoPub Assistant.
To give you a sense of its functionality, here’s an example chat interaction: Example Chat Thread.
I’d love to hear your feedback on the assistant, including thoughts on its potential utility.
Looking forward to your thoughts
Best
Andrew
--
Andrew George, Ph.D.
STEM Innovation and Engagement Director
Institute for Methods Innovation
and...@methodsinnovation.org
P: 906-399-3034
Tuan Amith
/ urgent?
- Do you think W3C is a good place for that, or do you have other
suggestions?
- Have you been involved in earlier/ongoing standardization efforts, and
could you share your experience?
- Would you be interested in joining such a standardization effort,
including the participation in discussions, calls, and document drafting?
Piotr Sowiński
Hi,
> Do you think standardizing nanopublications is a good idea / important / urgent
It may make nanopubs more convincing to adopters that care about this. I personally do not, but I'm the smallest of adopters. In any case, standardization takes a lot of effort, so it's some sort of a cost/benefit analysis.
An alternative is a different form of "stewardship". Something like becoming an Apache project. Or setting up a non-profit kind of thing.
Anyway, the definition of a "standard" is very loose. For
example, I've heard some IEEE-affiliated people say that W3C is
not a real SDO. What matters in the end is whether people believe
the tech is stable, has good stewardship, and that nobody is going
to ruin this unilaterally overnight. Do you always need an SDO for
that?
> Do you think W3C is a good place for that, or do you have
other suggestions?
Like others said, W3C is the natural choice. I am however
slightly concerned about one issue.
Solid. It has some overlap with Nanopubs regarding the objectives. It is backed by none other than Tim Berners-Lee himself, but nonetheless it's been stuck in standardization hell since 2018, with no W3C Recommendation in sight. I think it would be tremendously important to first research this topic very, very well, for two reasons. First, why are they stuck and is the root cause applicable also to the Nanopub effort? Second, would the existence of Solid make W3C reluctant to give us a charter for a Working Group? I recall one similar situation with the HDT binary format. The HDT team submitted a W3C Member Submission to which the reply was (in my very loose interpretation) "oh that's a lovely idea, now go and use EXI instead". I have zero idea about how the actual HDT team-W3C interaction played out, though.
Setting up a Community Group (CG) should not be too hard. The
question is whether this CG will result in a WG down the line.
Many CGs go nowhere.
> Have you been involved in earlier/ongoing standardization
efforts, and could you share your experience?
I have only observed some efforts in IEEE and W3C, without active participation.
> Would you be interested in joining such a standardization
effort, including the participation in discussions, calls, and
document drafting?
Yes, definitely, whatever the form of this effort is going to be.
-- Piotr Sowiński