Estudio Del Estándar Waterml

Challco, Betsy Mariby Salas; Pau, Joan Masó; Pesquer, Lluís

doi:10.21138/gf.485

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The authors noted that there was more value in sticking with the general implementation of data standards, as it increased portability. Relevant to this is the discussion surrounding the use of the WaterML standard for hydrologic data (Challco et al 2017;Yu et al 2015). Work in this area is iterative and serves as a check-andbalance between what the standards offer and what they necessarily sacrifice in the interest of universality.…”

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Cracking “Open” Technology in Ecohydrology

Turner

Hill

Caton

2020

Forest-Water Interactions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, the adjective "open" has been applied to many aspects of scientific knowledge discovery and dissemination, including open-source software and hardware, open access journal articles, massive open online courses, and open data.Applying the term open to these entities emphasizes an intention for them to be accessible-a quality increasingly emphasized as desirable in science. But there is nothing new about the idea of "open science." Science shed its character of secrecy in sixteenth-century Europe, when the wealthy players in the patronage system that was increasingly supporting scientific inquiry at that time found it in their interest for the scientists they supported to go public with their discoveries, as a form of ornamental display to enhance the patrons' own reputations and power (David 2004). Around this time, scientific discovery also became so complex and mathematically grounded that the patrons could no longer assess quality on their own; fearing charlatanism, patrons began encouraging systems of peer vetting, in which scientists would open their work to other scientists for the purpose of review and confirmation (David 2004). Clearly, the historically instituted practices of peer review and experiment replication are still followed in the current era, so what is The original version of this chapter was published non-open access.

show abstract

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%