Image by davemc500hats via Flickr One thing that has been becoming clearer and clearer to me is the need to an agreed central authority for identify. This is one thing, possibly the one thing, that needs to be absolutely secure and inviolable for Open Science to work. Trust relies on provenance. Attribution, which is at the heart of open practice, relies on provenance.

And other big words I learnt from mathematicians… The observant amongst you will have realised that the title of my previous post pushing a boat out into the area of semantics and RDF implied there was more to come. Those of you who followed the reaction [comments in original post, 1, 2, 3] will also be aware that there are much smarter and more knowledgeable people out there thinking about these problems.

Perimeter Institute by hungryhungrypixels (Picture found by Zemanta). Sabine Hossenfelder and Michael Nielsen of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics are organising a conference called ‘Science in the 21st Century‘ which was inspired in part by SciBarCamp.

Following on from my post there has been lots of discussion both in the comments to the post and also support and ideas on other blogs. I also had a good talk (I know, face to face, how archaic :) with Jeremy Frey about the idea. Here I want to collate a few of the comments and ideas. Jean-Claude makes a very good point in a comment on the original post. I believe it will be possible, with resources,Â

As I mentioned a couple of weeks or so ago I’ve been playing around with Friendfeed. This is a ‘lifestreaming’ web service which allows you to aggregate ‘all’ of the content you are generating on the web into one place (see here for mine). This is interesting from my perspective because it maps well onto our ideas about generating multiple data streams from a research lab.

A whole series of things have converged in the last couple of days for me. First was Jean-Claude’s description of the work [1, 2] he and Brent Friesen of the Dominican University are doing putting the combi-Ugi project into an undergraduate laboratory setting. The students will make new compounds which will then be sent for testing as antimalarial agents by Phil Rosenthal at UCSF.

I received the rejection letter late last week but hadn’t got as far as posting about this yet. Given the referee’s comments this was not surprising. We were ranked 20 out of 21 proposals that were considered by the panel. This is not nearly so bad as it sounds. The story as that there were over a hundred proposals so to actually get to the panel wasn’t a bad thing in its own right.

As part of the BioSysBio meeting being held in London 20-22 of April, Mattias Rantalainen kindly asked me to contribute to a workshop on Open Science being held on the Wednesday. A number of OpenWetWare people including Julius Lucks and John Cumbers have agreed to come on board to help. You can see the draft abstract which is up at OpenWetWare.

Frank Gibson has continued the discussion that kicked off here and has continued here [1, 2, 3, 4] and in other places [1, 2] along the way.

This started out as a comment on Peter Murray-Rust’s response to my post and grew to the point where it seemed to warrant its own post.