3 ms·

Isn't it possible to consider each little 'chunk' of knowledge, data, information as a node in the dependency graph, as opposed to one whole paper? We could al

Isn't it possible to consider each little 'chunk' of knowledge, data, information as a node in the dependency graph, as opposed to one whole paper? We could also have a hierarchy to represent layers and composition of knowledge. Not to say it is easy, but it looks quite possible.

dalke 12y ago
While it's certainly possible, in an abstract sense, what is a "chunk"? Who gets to decide? How do we resolve disagreements? There is a vast set of reasons for why something is cited. "This argument fails if reference X is wrong" is different from "I cite X because my professor/grant reviewer wrote the paper" vs. "I don't want to repeat something I described in a previous paper" vs. "I used the same training set described in X but for different purposes" vs ... Or, suppose I write a paper which analyzes the evolution of how the term "gene" is used over the 1900s. It's unlikely that every detail that might be analyzed will be dissected into its individual components. And if it were, that's an awful lot of work, with little chance automation support (especially if some of the reasons, like promoting one's earlier work, are gauche to state explicitly). These the concrete problems that make it really hard to convert the "possible to consider" into something practical.
- nopinsight 12y ago
  > Who gets to decide? The authors under a community guideline. Editors should get to edit as appropriate. > There is a vast set of reasons for why something is cited... Adding reasons as a label to the citation link in the dependency graph would be very useful.
  - CHY872 12y ago
    You seem to be describing a high-maintenance search engine, if I'm not mistaken. The thing is, to my knowledge most academics keep up to date on most everything that is happening in their field; they don't need this high level overview because they don't communicate solely through journals. It's only if you don't have the view that it's useful; which is obviously a problem for PhDs, but I'd question whether it's worth the necessary annotation investment (hours per paper for good classification, I'd imagine).
  - dalke 12y ago
    You are being entirely too abstract. Once you try to embody these abstract ideas into concrete form, you'll discover that it does not work. Or rather, the gains are limited compared to the cost of creating, curating, and maintaining the extra metadata, and the error rate will be high. "a label to the citation link in the dependency graph ..." To start with, here's the Citation Typing Ontology: http://www.essepuntato.it/lode/http://purl.org/spar/cito http://www.essepuntato.it/lode/http://purl.org/spar/cito . I then write a paper which says that approach X is generally three times faster than Y, and http://purl.org/spar/cito/citesAsEvidence http://purl.org/spar/cito/citesAsEvidence paper ABC. Now, paper ABC is the one I mentioned earlier, which omitted a data point because of a transcription error by the authors. This is not a serious error, but it is a mistake. So you write a paper which http://purl.org/spar/cito/corrects http://purl.org/spar/cito/corrects paper ABC. How does this automated system of scientific dependencies supposed to figure out that my paper is not invalidated by your correction to paper ABC? "... would be very useful" It may well be useful, but it can't be used to give what the OP wants. My comments concern the infeasibility of the proposed system, not the feasibility or usability of other projects which are in the same general area.

dalke 12y ago

While it's certainly possible, in an abstract sense, what is a "chunk"? Who gets to decide? How do we resolve disagreements? There is a vast set of reasons for why something is cited. "This argument fails if reference X is wrong" is different from "I cite X because my professor/grant reviewer wrote the paper" vs. "I don't want to repeat something I described in a previous paper" vs. "I used the same training set described in X but for different purposes" vs ... Or, suppose I write a paper which analyzes the evolution of how the term "gene" is used over the 1900s. It's unlikely that every detail that might be analyzed will be dissected into its individual components. And if it were, that's an awful lot of work, with little chance automation support (especially if some of the reasons, like promoting one's earlier work, are gauche to state explicitly). These the concrete problems that make it really hard to convert the "possible to consider" into something practical.

nopinsight 12y ago
> Who gets to decide? The authors under a community guideline. Editors should get to edit as appropriate. > There is a vast set of reasons for why something is cited... Adding reasons as a label to the citation link in the dependency graph would be very useful.
- CHY872 12y ago
  You seem to be describing a high-maintenance search engine, if I'm not mistaken. The thing is, to my knowledge most academics keep up to date on most everything that is happening in their field; they don't need this high level overview because they don't communicate solely through journals. It's only if you don't have the view that it's useful; which is obviously a problem for PhDs, but I'd question whether it's worth the necessary annotation investment (hours per paper for good classification, I'd imagine).
- dalke 12y ago
  You are being entirely too abstract. Once you try to embody these abstract ideas into concrete form, you'll discover that it does not work. Or rather, the gains are limited compared to the cost of creating, curating, and maintaining the extra metadata, and the error rate will be high. "a label to the citation link in the dependency graph ..." To start with, here's the Citation Typing Ontology: http://www.essepuntato.it/lode/http://purl.org/spar/cito http://www.essepuntato.it/lode/http://purl.org/spar/cito . I then write a paper which says that approach X is generally three times faster than Y, and http://purl.org/spar/cito/citesAsEvidence http://purl.org/spar/cito/citesAsEvidence paper ABC. Now, paper ABC is the one I mentioned earlier, which omitted a data point because of a transcription error by the authors. This is not a serious error, but it is a mistake. So you write a paper which http://purl.org/spar/cito/corrects http://purl.org/spar/cito/corrects paper ABC. How does this automated system of scientific dependencies supposed to figure out that my paper is not invalidated by your correction to paper ABC? "... would be very useful" It may well be useful, but it can't be used to give what the OP wants. My comments concern the infeasibility of the proposed system, not the feasibility or usability of other projects which are in the same general area.