Great, then I hope that we can look to implementing it, and also publicizing it. For those new to wiki's, they often don't see what the big deal is, it's only when you know about the history tab and can look back over X years of changes that the power becomes apparent.
<br><br>I'll bring up how to implement this at the next steering committee meeting, Perhaps this could be mentioned in the review article that somebody was writing about OWW?<br><br>Best, <br>John<br><br><br><br><div>
<span class="gmail_quote">On 5/6/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Tom Knight</b> <<a href="mailto:tk@csail.mit.edu">tk@csail.mit.edu</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
With MD5 or better hashes of the data, and well known techniques for<br>hash-merging and publication, the technical problem of assuring dated<br>unforgeable records was solved 10 years ago. We just need to<br>implement well known solutions to these problems.
<br><br>We don't need a third party to authenticate records. The records, and<br>the public irrevocable and untamperable disclosure (in print, e.g. in<br>the NY Times) of a daily hash are sufficient.<br><br> Internet Archive (
<a href="http://www.archive.org">www.archive.org</a>) will gladly store our records. It<br>is a drop in the bucket compared to what they are storing every day.<br>Brewster Kahle (who runs it) is a personal friend, but that wouldn't
<br>make it more likely to happen.<br><br><br>On May 6, 2007, at 1:48 PM, John Cumbers wrote:<br><br>> I think that this is where the future funding of OWW could come from.<br>> Could we think about formalizing (or publisizing if it already happens
<br>> on a regular interval) a dump of the OWW database. Furthermore, is<br>> there an organization out there that would store a physical copy of<br>> the dump, e.g on a tape backup, DVD, HD. A body independent of OWW
<br>> that could authenticate the data has not been tampered with in cases<br>> of fraud. Other organizations must be thinking about this too.<br>> Probably something we don't want to do now, but this could form the
<br>> basis of a long-term grant in the future.<br>><br>> this also relates to a recent post about Wiki's not being a reliable<br>> source for patent cases. I'd say that we could turn them into a<br>> reliable source if we implemented a policy such as that above.
<br>><br>> Best,<br>> John<br>><br>><br>> <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7140/full/447001b.html">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7140/full/447001b.html</a><br>><br>> Nature 447, 1-2 (3 May 2007) | doi:
10.1038/447001b; Published online<br>> 2 May 2007<br>><br>> Share your lab notes<br>><br>> The use of electronic laboratory notebooks should be supported by all<br>> concerned.<br>><br>> Institutions therefore need to show leadership in this area, and
<br>> funding agencies should provide additional infrastructure support<br>> earmarked for the development and upkeep of electronic notebook<br>> systems. Funding agencies also need to recognize that, by providing
<br>> such support, some of the concerns over the loss of data can be<br>> assuaged, and the rigour and transparency of publicly funded research<br>> will be improved.<br>><br>> --<br>> John Cumbers,Graduate Student
<br>> Biology and Medicine<br>> Brown University, Box G-W<br>> Providence, Rhode Island, 02912, USA<br>> Tel USA: +1 401 523 8190,Fax: +1 401 863-2166<br>> UK to USA: 0207 617 7824_______________________________________________
<br>> OpenWetWare Discussion Mailing List<br>> <a href="mailto:discuss@openwetware.org">discuss@openwetware.org</a><br>> <a href="http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/oww-discuss">http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/oww-discuss
</a><br><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br> John Cumbers, Graduate Student<br>Biology and Medicine <br>Brown University, Box G-W<br>Providence, Rhode Island, 02912, USA<br>Tel USA: +1 401 523 8190, Fax: +1 401 863-2166
<br>UK to USA: 0207 617 7824