Dear All,
I fully agree that databases of measurements should be archived online,
and I would go further to encourage our colleagues to share their entire
databases (beyond measurements) online, as well. I'm sure we all agree
that this potentially very useful information should not be lost and the
Web offers a space solution so that we no longer have to just publish
summary tables of our findings.
One of the most important elements is making sure that a data set is
linked to the report or publication that describes the site,
methodology, etc., or that this information is provided alongside the
data set. I have published some of my data in Open Context (a system
developed by my organization):
http://opencontext.org/sets/Turkey/?proj=Domuztepe+Excavations&cat=Animal+Bone
Another nice example is here:
http://opencontext.org/projects/B1DAC335-4DC6-4A57-622E-75BF28BA598D
(where Canan Çakırlar published data related to her BAR publication).
In Open Context, the dataset is archived and published in the analyst's
name. Each item has its own URL and a citation so the data can always be
found again, cited in a print publication, etc. All it requires is data
in tabular format and some descriptive information about the project.
Data from Open Context can be downloaded by users in various formats to
make it easily reusable in a variety of software applications (as Mike
emphasized below).
Open Context is currently supported by a series of grants, and our
primary goal is to help researchers share their data in order to
increase the amount of quality research content available on the Web. We
realize that many people are looking for ways to share their research
data and perhaps don't have the technical support or infrastructure to
do so. Open Context was built to help out with this! I'd be happy to
discuss this further with anyone interested in publishing their data.
Thanks,
Sarah
On 5/20/2010 11:42 AM, Michael A. Etnier wrote:
> while it may be too late for this to help Fiona with her current work, i
> voice a strong vote to archive databases of measurements on-line as
> tab-delimited text files (clearly referenced in the final report). if the
> data are especially proprietary, then all the better motivation to publish
> on them before granting open access to the data.
>
> here are the main reasons i feel so strongly about this:
>
> 1. considering how gigantic some measurement databases can be, it seems
> pretty unwieldy to try to print hard copies of the data tables.
>
> 2. most databases of measurements will also likely have a lengthy list of
> caveats that are important to be aware of.
>
> 3. hard copies of gigantic databases would be extremely unpleasant to
> hand-enter for any meta-analyses (not to mention introducing the
> possibility of data-entry errors).
>
> and
>
> 4. tab-delimited text files can be opened by a wide range of software
> packages. whatever format you chose for archiving the files, specify
> clearly what that format is.
>
>
> as an example of how i've archived my database of skeletal measurements on
> northern fur seals, take a look at:
>
> http://pinniped.net/etnier/dissertation/diss%20data%20files/
>
> the root directory has two text files ("disclaimer" and "data files info")
> that will hopefully maximize the utility of the data to anyone who wants to
> use them, while also minimizing the possibility of mis-use of the data.
>
> cheers,
>
> mike
>
> Michael A. Etnier, PhD
> Applied Osteology
> Bellingham, WA
> www.appliedosteology.com
>
> and
>
> Department of Anthropology
> University of Washington
> Seattle, WA
> http://faculty.washington.edu/metnier/
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>
>> From: "Umberto Albarella"<[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 10:56 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: [ZOOARCH] metrical data in 'grey' literature
>>
> reports
>
>> since Fiona's question is clearly of general interest could I please ask
>> zooarchers to reply to the whole list rather than just to her? many
>>
> thanks
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Quoting fiona beglane<[log in to unmask]>:
>>
>>
>>> Hello Zooarchers,
>>> I am trying to put together a research project at the moment looking
>>>
> at
>
>>> metrical data from grey literature and am coming up with a problem.
>>>
>>> When I submit a report I include a tabulated form of the metrics which
>>>
> for
>
>>> each individual bone lists out the results for that individual bone
>>>
> e.g. GL,
>
>>> Bp etc. so that all the data from the one bone is together. Looking
>>>
> through
>
>>> grey literature I am finding a lot of reports that only include summary
>>>
> data
>
>>> e.g. for GL they would give the max, min, mean and std. dev. This is
>>> understandable in final publication where space is often at a premium,
>>>
> but I
>
>>> was surprised that the 'full' grey literature reports were being
>>>
> submitted in
>
>>> this way. From the point of view of looking at changes over time and
>>>
> space
>
>>> this makes the data much less useful to work with - and getting hold of
>>>
> the
>
>>> original data might be difficult where the zooarchaeologist may have
>>>
> left the
>
>>> country/profession.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have any thoughts? eg. do you or do you not include the
>>>
> full data
>
>>> in the report? Any good reasons why this data should not be included?
>>>
> Any
>
>>> thoughts on how this summary data might be used in a valid way?
>>>
>>> Thank you all
>>> Fiona
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
--
Sarah Whitcher Kansa
Executive Director
The Alexandria Archive Institute
www.alexandriaarchive.org
www.opencontext.org
Tel: 1-415-425-7381
Fax: 1-866-505-8626
