DataONE:Notebook/Reuse of repository data/2010/06/14
 Reuse of Repository Data
|
 Main project page Previous entry Next entry
|
Notes for June 14, 2010
Resources searched with search terms and hit count
Observations
Conversation with Heather Piwowar around 9:30 a.m.
Anonymous user 1748: Hi Valerie, is that you? This is Heather me: hello yes Anonymous user 1748: Good morning :) me: good morning Anonymous user 1748: I was just looking at your spreadsheet. Looks like you are finding a lot of cases of people depositing data into TreeBASE, eh? oh, I see.... me: yes Anonymous user 1748: are the first few rows from when you were still extracting data that was being shared into treebase? me: I'm trying to narrow it down yes Anonymous user 1748: I see the last few rows are reuse = Great me: I'm improving the search (and making notes in the OWW lab notebook) Anonymous user 1748: are you thinking you'll keep adding rows for the shared cases? me: I hope I'm more successful in the search. shared cases? Anonymous user 1748: hmmmm. let's see if I can explain it better me: when there's both reused data AND deposited data? Anonymous user 1748: nope. I mean I can see by your notes that one of your searches returned 56 results, is that right? me: yes Anonymous user 1748: are you putting all 56 results in the spreadsheet? and then some turn out to be reuse of treebase and some turn out to be people depositing data into treebase? me: I have not been (I am making a note that many of the articles found have the phrasing "data deposited in") Anonymous user 1748: right. great. me: should I be adding them anyway? or is the note sufficient Anonymous user 1748: nope, I think what you are doing sounds right on. me: ok good Anonymous user 1748: adding them to the SS would be way too time consuming for too little benefit, that's what you are thinking too? me: because I was afraid doing that would detract from time spent finding actual hits Anonymous user 1748: yes I was just a bit confused because I saw row 19, 20, etc that say available/deposited in/etc me: oh, I think those were from Friday Anonymous user 1748: gotcha! me: only the last three or so are from today (maybe two) Anonymous user 1748: ah hah! yes, and those last few look great :) cool. me: I'm going to go back to Web of Science and Nature and Scirus with the improved search later. I just figured it was probably better if I left the original searches in the spreadsheet Anonymous user 1748: one idea then might be to add a column that simply encodes whether the mention of TreeBASE is in the context of putting data in or out me: at least for now, for my own reference ah, good idea Anonymous user 1748: hmmm maybe two columns "data into treebase" "data out of treebase" and then both could be true or false and mostly your new columns will only be "data out of treebase" me: ok, would that go at the end of the rows or near the beginning? er, columns Anonymous user 1748: but it will help describe what is "old data" from when you were doing it a different way your call where the columns go :) me: ok Anonymous user 1748: Your idea of keeping track of the refs via citulike is handy me: it might get confusing because I had exported a full list of articles prior to looking through the text first adding the DOIs is really useful too Anonymous user 1748: hmmmm I see. well, yeah, though I could see how adding them to citeulike any other way would be harder. well, your call how to you want to handle that. good me: I'll try to figure something out. Anonymous user 1748: yeah, though don't spend a lot of time on it because it is only a nice-to-have. me: maybe I'll import a list after I've completed the searches using DOIs ok Anonymous user 1748: your last few rows you've added capture lots of the meat... they are great me: thanks we're meeting today at noon, right? Anonymous user 1748: one thought I had is that you might want to specify the end date in your searches a little bit more definitely otherwise everytime you search for something ending in 2010 you'll get different results :) me: ok, I know Sys. Bio automatically set it to May 2010 ah Anonymous user 1748: so maybe end in 2009, or on June 1 2010. ok, yup, that would work me: ok I know some searches only let you search down to the month. Anonymous user 1748: just wanted to make sure it was defined and it wasn't immediately obvious from a quick glance at the notes. yup! good me: ok Anonymous user 1748: any questions or anything before our meeting, or are you good? me: when I re-do the Web of Science and other searches, I'll make sure to make that definitions I think I'm a lot clearer than I was before. thanks for helping me sort that out Anonymous user 1748: no problem! ok, talk more at noon your time, ping me in the meantime if you get stuck on anything..... me: ok, neat. thanks again! Anonymous user 1748: (one more small comment in your new columns... I would explictly add "0" for false, to distinguish it from blank = don't know or haven't figured it out yet or wasn't clear....) bye :) me: ok, thanks! Anonymous user 1748: no problem! ok, talk more at noon your time, ping me in the meantime if you get stuck on anything..... me: ok, neat. thanks again! Anonymous user 1748: (one more small comment in your new columns... I would explictly add "0" for false, to distinguish it from blank = don't know or haven't figured it out yet or wasn't clear....) bye :) me: ok, thanks! | |
