Forum Replies Created
March 11, 2009 at 4:05 pm #64805
What do you mean by collaboration?
It is not easy to collaborate on shared files or resources in a forum, unless the forum is a central conversation space which links to collaborative resources like Office Live Workspace, Google Docs, Zoho, etc.
Most collaborative tools have a comment or discussion feature built into the tool, but most do not have a high level forum or discussion group built in.
Other similar tools that could be run in-house at NIST might be a central Sharepoint server or even better something open source like Alfresco CMS. http://www.alfresco.com/ which supports the Sharepoint protocols built into most MS Office apps.
February 10, 2009 at 1:17 am #66228
Because the work is a product of Federal Government employees in the course of their official duties, the work product must be public domain according to US copyright law. There is a little bit more information about this on our Disclaimer page.
From what I understand we can inherit and honor externally imposed copyright license, but we cannot impose them on our original works.
February 9, 2009 at 11:46 pm #66232
I agree, we are producing OSS at NIST and don’t follow everything that this quite comprehensive document presents. But it has helped guide some of our decisions and tuned are development processes. For higher level philosophical information, I would also recommend something like the Cathedral and the Bazaar to people new to this OSS realm.
To see what we are doing, our development project is here…
You can see that we are trying our best to create a super transparent development project, and build a large community around it.
February 9, 2009 at 11:26 pm #66236
January 13, 2009 at 8:58 pm #64819
Sure, when is the next meeting?
January 13, 2009 at 8:55 pm #64821
I agree that everything should be open and transparent as the default condition. Also, that all things should be available on the web, not necessarily a web page, but at least a URL.
I really like wiki technology, but it has some limited applicability in terms of the content it contains and presents. For example, Large Data sets, Spreadsheets esp. with dynamic data feeds or functions, Flow Charts and Data Models, Slide Show Presentations, etc. don’t really work well in a Wiki. There are better collaborative tools for sharing and working with others on these information objects.
For living documents that primarily exist online (not printed), evolve frequently and have many different contributors, you can’t really beat a good Wiki, but in my opinion, it does not solve all problems as you suggest. Plus, if the editing mode for the wiki content does not include a nice UI and only Wiki markup in plain text, it borders on being unacceptable for wide scale user adoption. People like WYSIWYG, they are used to it and it provides a more tightly coupled feedback loop during authorship, which tends to improve user productivity and lowers the learning curve.
But, I still love the Wiki… I can’t deny it.
January 9, 2009 at 4:42 am #64797
On another related issue, from what I understand, public domain does not exist internationally. Which does cause some problems for users overseas. It seems to me that NIST should use something like Creative Commons license for our work. MIT license would also be an interesting choice.
The main problem seems to be that other countries claim you first have to have rights, to give those rights away. Public Domain is a bit of a catch 22 legally.
January 9, 2009 at 4:28 am #64799
I was thinking more specifically about experimental and simulation data sets.
We also provide source code under the same public domain status. It is funny because we too have to regularly explain what Public Domain means and that they are free to use our works.
I have heard that in the case of experimental data or research results, that making it public prior to patents are applied can invalidate the ability for future IP protection, which would in turn effect commercialization of that work.
January 8, 2009 at 8:10 pm #64827
January 8, 2009 at 5:36 pm #64833
I am not sure if others have seen this too…
January 8, 2009 at 4:52 pm #63592
I did start a thread, and hopefully we can make some progress in this area.
December 19, 2008 at 1:24 pm #61805
December 19, 2008 at 1:17 pm #62387
I grouped them together into the departments I was told to watch out for when trying to make progress in the areas we are discussing now. This was two years ago, so maybe the attitude and culture is evolving. I am glad to hear an affirmative position from PA, as this is one less thing to worry about in my work.
-Bryan Klein, IT Specialist
The views presented here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of NIST.
December 19, 2008 at 1:12 pm #62389
I have a couple of questions/suggestions.
In the 5th bullet item about public comments, it says:
‘Public comments will be reviewed, ideally within one business day, and posted as long as they are on topic, respectful, and honor copyright and other applicable laws.’
I think that the way these things work best is to allow logged in members of the public to comment and have thoes comments show up immediately. Then the blog author should be responsible for checking the comment and removing it if it conflicts with the posted comment policy. I say this because for timely conversation to take place, there has to be a smooth flow of information. Putting a one business day buffer into the information stream can mess up that flow. Imagine commenting on a post, and it goes into the queue for review… at the same time another commenter is saying the same thing, and it goes into the queue, 6 hours later they post, now a third person has posted an opposing view it goes into the queue, but since it is the end of the business day, that won’t post for 8 to 10 hours until the designated OU reviewer comes back to the office. lather, rinse, repeat… This would be a conversation that I would not follow for long, unless I wanted to crawl along with the information, waiting out the next posting. If we make a clear statement that comments on the sites do not reflect the position of NIST and will be moderated. That any comments not adhering to the posted comment policy will be removed… and people who violate the more serious aspects of the comment policy will have their accounts suspended or removed as well. We can be firm with the consequences and let the public decide to play along by our rules or not.
In the 9th bullet item,
How will accounts be identified as official NIST accounts on these services?
Isn’t the content contributor directly held liable for any violation of the TOS or will NIST be making the agreement by proxy through the employee and held liable?
Will there be a form that these companies can sign, or will they have to modify their TOS and use agreements?
Will there be a listing of all approved sites, and again, how will we identify the difference between my official NIST account and my personal account on the same service?
What if we were to use our personal accounts and post unofficial information we create ourselves outside of core hours that is related to NIST work? For example, I do a screencast at home on the weekend and post it to YouTube under my personal account, but the topic is related to my work at NIST.
It may be possible to replace the word ‘blog’ with ‘social media (or Web 2.0) technologies’ in a few more places. Probably ‘Social Media’ instead of ‘Web 2.0’ as the latter is becoming a dated catch phrase from 2005. Although all things age, and soon Social Media will be out of date, but without a numeric identifier it might be generic enough to be relevant for a while.
Take a look at :
It is looking really good,
December 16, 2008 at 1:23 pm #63469
With our project at NIST, we are trying to integrate as many community building and social networking/media technologies as we can. We have been doing this for almost 2 years now and have learned many valuable lessons. We did not do it because of ‘Web 2.0’ which by the way is almost 3 years old now, in computer years that is elderly. We did these things because were HUGE gaps in the services we were offering and I knew that if we could give the public tools to allow them to communicate and collaborate with us, that it would accelerate our progress at growth rates that quite honestly NIST could never afford. We have literally hundreds to thousands of people all over the world who are spending their own time and energy to help us make our project more successful. It has been amazing to see the whole thing come together. The best part is that we are only at the beginning of really tapping into the power of these tools and services. The future growth involves us being better at using them to extract information from the community more efficiently and integrating that into our work more easily. The second part of our growth will come from the community growing and learning that we are receptive and appreciate their efforts, that the time the spend contributing will have impact in the project.
It was a little late for me to present anything at Social Media Day, I did setup a laptop looping a little slide show I made the night before… but I was too busy interacting with the people there to be able to stand by my computer and wait for someone to talk to me. If you saw my little MacBook there and I was not, now you know why. 🙂
I am glad to be a part of this process and I look forward to how NIST is going to grow as we all embrace new ways of working through these social tools.