Sarven Capadisli

I am.

[Sarven Capadisli @csarven]

Published "Linked Research on the Decentralised Web": https://t.co/Mvf9rggfFS

[Sarven Capadisli @csarven]

@w3c @studio24 curl -i https://t.co/5N3f6xO42V
HTTP/2 200
content-location: facts.html

facts (resource URI). facts.html (representation URL)

Changing Consortium/facts.html (awkward) to about/facts goes counter to above, Cool URIs, persistence.

Is the URL Strategy available as a URI Template?

[Sarven Capadisli @csarven]

@bianca_oli_per This may spark some ideas useful to you:
https://t.co/fRvJwVYh8Q - the Cited By section near the top that's dynamically loaded ie. back references by checking the document's own inbox. It is briefly explained under Notifying Cited Entity in
https://t.co/bebH4DkTy7 and elsewhere.

[Sarven Capadisli @csarven]

@lysander07 SW/LD research communication disagrees :)

[Sarven Capadisli @csarven]

@BobSiegerink @openscience I self-publish my own creations eg. https://t.co/hYRDPILSh0

I allocate the URIs for the resources..

information is human- and machine-readable, accessible, archivable..

ad tech / surveillance software free for my readers..

get to dogfood/demo the tech that I preach about.

[Sarven Capadisli @csarven]

What could possibly be the starting bid for the first Web page (and UDI): https://t.co/t01mIx7mvG

[Sarven Capadisli @csarven]

@azra_vi :) https://t.co/cQ9miFoHbT

[Sarven Capadisli @csarven]

37 minutes in, dude tells the woman of the year he wants to marry her

[Sarven Capadisli @csarven]

@jeroenbosman @Richvn @lisalibrarian @Bibliojo @aarontay @paigecmorgan re textbook/market definition of OA, no need to preprints/self-publishing in the table. Out of scope.

Self-publishing/preprints are open by default, provably more human/machine-accessible, and ethical than status quo OA publishing.

Table should include accessibility/ethics?
4/

[Sarven Capadisli @csarven]

@jeroenbosman @Richvn @lisalibrarian @Bibliojo @aarontay @paigecmorgan Perhaps clarify table caption "publishing open access: author choices".

When authors are required to use for- or non-profit third-parties, it's not a "choice".

Self-publishing puts creators at the centre of research communication. Everything else is repackaging/colours.. =)
3/

[Sarven Capadisli @csarven]

@jeroenbosman @Richvn @lisalibrarian @Bibliojo @aarontay @paigecmorgan Partly why I suggested always/not-applicable given dependencies. Not sure how useful it's that a research funder expects/allows personal funding but not acknowledge?

You should self-publish an article on this. Table doesn't cut it.. or need a pretty complicated legend :) 2/

[Sarven Capadisli @csarven]

@jeroenbosman @Richvn @lisalibrarian @Bibliojo @aarontay @paigecmorgan Table may need more massaging. Impossible to tell if any options fulfills an external funders requirements w/o knowing the requirements.

If table is about publications dependent on external funders requiring third-party systems, it says what qualifies as research contribution 1/

[Sarven Capadisli @csarven]

@jeroenbosman @Richvn @lisalibrarian @Bibliojo @aarontay @paigecmorgan "Web" and/or "HTTP URI" works. HTTP URI is where authors have authority/ownership/jurisdiction on the identifier. Having privileges to allocate a URI to a resource. HTTP URI can resolve to a location (URL)... So, essentially anywhere the author may be able to on the Web.

[Sarven Capadisli @csarven]

@jeroenbosman @Richvn @lisalibrarian @Bibliojo @aarontay @paigecmorgan I interpret funder requirement in context of funder value, which can vary. If the funder is same as author (or creator..), why would another (external) party's requirement matter? I think the value should either be 'always' or 'not applicable'.

[Sarven Capadisli @csarven]

@jeroenbosman @Richvn @lisalibrarian @Bibliojo @aarontay @paigecmorgan However! Giving this a second look, for 'personal' funding, the requirements are 'always' fulfilled. I think this should be corrected in the table.

[Sarven Capadisli @csarven]

@jeroenbosman @Richvn @lisalibrarian @Bibliojo @aarontay @paigecmorgan I assume cost 'free' is to free to the author, but not to whatever is keeping it up.

fulfill funder req. is 'mostly not' because funders predominantly operate within an ecosystem that required authors to transfer control (identifiers, data, applications) to third-parties. 2/

[Sarven Capadisli @csarven]

@jeroenbosman @Richvn @lisalibrarian @Bibliojo @aarontay @paigecmorgan HTTP URI for what's under one's authority and the possibility to give any resource of significance its own URI. Still possible to provide copies to libraries and archives.

When? As desired. Don't need to ask permission to publish on the Web. It doesn't entail certification. 3/

[Sarven Capadisli @csarven]

@jeroenbosman @Richvn @lisalibrarian @Bibliojo @aarontay @paigecmorgan re self-publishing:

baseline funding may be 'personal' but it doesn't exclude private (today) or a future where institutions provide the 'infrastructure' or ~$100/year (generous!) to share unlimited number of resources (articles, reviews, data..) 1/

[Sarven Capadisli @csarven]

@jeroenbosman @Richvn @lisalibrarian @Bibliojo @aarontay @paigecmorgan https://t.co/l0AqUkyNIo

[Sarven Capadisli @csarven]

@jeroenbosman @jessicapolka @MsPhelps @AnnaHscientist @Protohedgehog @emckiernan13 @iaravps self-publishing

who: author
where: HTTP URI
when: at any state
costs: free (practically)
fulfill funder req.: mostly not
funding: personal/private
license/copyright: any, copyright retained

#LinkedResearch

[Sarven Capadisli @csarven]

@LIBEReurope What information do you want to make universally identifiable, human and machine-readable?