Skip to main content

Home/ OpenSciInfo/ Group items tagged domain

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Mike Chelen

Protocol for Implementing Open Access Data - 0 views

sciencecommons.org/...open-access-data-protocol

science commons open access data public domain

shared by Mike Chelen on 07 Sep 08 - Cached
  • information for the Internet community
  • distributing data or databases
  • “open” and “open access”
  • ...69 more annotations...
  • requirements for gaining and using the Science Commons Open Access Data Mark and metadata
  • interoperability of scientific data
  • terms and conditions around data make integration difficult to legally perform
  • single license
  • data with this license can be integrated with any other data under this license
  • too many databases under too many terms already
  • unlikely that any one license or suite of licenses will have the correct mix of terms
  • principles for open access data and a protocol for implementing those principles
  • Open Access Data Mark and metadata
  • databases and data
  • the foundation to legally integrate a database or data product
  • another database or data product
  • no mechanisms to manage transfer or negotiations of rights unrelated to integration
  • submitted to Science Commons for certification as a conforming implementation
  • Open Access Data trademarks (icons and phrases) and metadata on databases
  • protocol must promote legal predictability and certainty
  • easy to use and understand
  • lowest possible transaction costs on users
  • Science Commons’ experience in distributing a database licensing Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) file
  • hard to apply the distinction between what is copyrightable and what is not copyrightable
  • lack of simplicity restricts usage
  • reducing or eliminating the need to make the distinction between copyrightable and non-copyrightable elements
  • satisfy the norms and expectations of the disciplines providing the database
  • norms for citation will differ
  • norms must be attached
  • Converge on the public domain by waiving all rights based on intellectual property
  • reconstruction of the public domain
  • scientific norms to express the wishes of the data provider
  • public domain
  • waiving the relevant rights on data and asserting that the provider makes no claims on the data
  • Requesting behavior, such as citation, through norms rather than as a legal requirement based on copyright or contracts, allows for different scientific disciplines to develop different norms for citation.
  • waive all rights necessary for data extraction and re-use
  • copyright
  • sui generis database rights
  • claims of unfair competition
  • implied contracts
  • and other legal rights
  • any obligations on the user of the data or database such as “copyleft” or “share alike”, or even the legal requirement to provide attribution
  • non-legally binding set of citation norms
  • waiving other statutory or intellectual property rights
  • there are other rights, in addition to copyright, that may apply
  • uncopyrightable databases may be protected in some countries
  • sui generis rights apply in the European Union
  • waivers of sui generis and other legal grounds for database protection
  • no contractual controls
  • using contract, rather than intellectual property or statutory rights, to apply terms to databases
  • affirmatively declare that contractual constraints do not apply to the database
  • interoperation with databases and data not available under the Science Commons Open Access Data Protocol through metadata
  • data that is not or cannot be made available under this protocol
  • owner provides metadata (as data) under this protocol so that the existence of the non-open access data is discoverable
  • digital identifiers and metadata describing non-open access data
  • “Licensing” a database typically means that the “copyrightable elements” of a database are made available under a copyright license
  • Database FAQ, in its first iteration, recommended this method
  • recommendation is now withdrawn
  • copyright begins in and ends in many databases
  • database divided into copyrightable and non copyrightable elements
  • user tends to assume that all is under copyright or none is under copyright
  • share-alike license on the copyrightable elements may be falsely assumed to operate on the factual contents of a database
  • copyright in situations where it is not necessary
  • query across tens of thousands of data records across the web might return a result which itself populates a new database
  • selective waiving of intellectual property rights fail to provide a high degree of legal certainty and ease of use
  • problem of false expectations
  • apply a “copyleft” term to the copyrightable elements of a database, in hopes that those elements result in additional open access database elements coming online
  • uncopyrightable factual content
  • republish those contents without observing the copyleft or share-alike terms
  • cascading attribution if attribution is required as part of a license approach
  • Would a scientist need to attribute 40,000 data depositors in the event of a query across 40,000 data sets?
  • conflict with accepted norms in some disciplines
  • imposes a significant transaction cost
Mike Chelen

Open Knowledge Foundation Blog » Blog Archive » Open Data: Openness and Licen... - 0 views

blog.okfn.org/...en-data-openness-and-licensing

okfn blog open data science license

shared by Mike Chelen on 11 Feb 09 - Cached
  • Why bother about openness and licensing for data
  • It’s crucial because open data is so much easier to break-up and recombine, to use and reuse.
  • want people to have incentives to make their data open and for open data to be easily usable and reusable
  • ...8 more annotations...
  • good definition of openness acts as a standard that ensures different open datasets are ‘interoperable’
  • Licensing is important because it reduces uncertainty. Without a license you don’t know where you, as a user, stand: when are you allowed to use this data? Are you allowed to give to others? To distribute your own changes, etc?
  • licensing and definitions are important even though they are only a small part of the overall picture
  • If we get them wrong they will keep on getting in the way of everything else.
  • Everyone agrees that requiring attribution is OK
    • Mike Chelen
      Mike Chelen on 11 Feb 09
       
      My opinion is that there should be no requirements, including attribution, and that standards should be community-based instead of legal.
  • Even if a basic license is used it can be argued that any ‘requirements’ for attribution or share-alike should not be in a license but in ‘community norms’.
    • Mike Chelen
      Mike Chelen on 11 Feb 09
       
      Licenses and community norms are not exclusive. It's recommended to adopt a Public Domain license, and encourage attribution through community standards.
  • A license is likely to elicit at least as much, and almost certainly more, conformity with its provisions than community norms.
    • Mike Chelen
      Mike Chelen on 11 Feb 09
       
      Ease of access and should be the goal, not conformity.
  • (even to a user it is easy to comply with the open license)
    • Mike Chelen
      Mike Chelen on 11 Feb 09
       
      It is important to specifically publish using a Public Domain dedication.
  • Mike Chelen on 11 Feb 09
     
    Why bother about openness and licensing for data? After all they don't matter in themselves: what we really care about are things like the progress of human knowledge or the freedom to understand and share.
Mike Chelen

Neuroscience Information Framework (Main.WebHome) - Neuroscience Information Framework ... - 0 views

wiki.neuinfo.org/...Main

neuroscience wiki

shared by Mike Chelen on 15 Dec 08 - No Cached
  • Mike Chelen on 15 Dec 08
     
    The advent of the World Wide Web has led to an explosion in the number of diverse resources available to neuroscientists. Despite the availability of powerful search engines, locating these diverse resources has become increasingly difficult and time consuming. The NIF project utilizes both advanced machine-based search technologies and old-fashioned human legwork to provide access to neuroscience-relevant resources on the Web. Resources include research materials, Web pages, software tools, data sets, literature and general information. The NIF has developed technologies that allow a user to search across these different types of resources, all from a single interface. A unique feature of the NIF is the ability to issue direct queries against multiple databases simultaneously, retrieving content that is largely hidden from traditional search engines. A second unique feature is an extensive vocabulary covering major neuroscience domains for describing and searching these resources. The NIF takes advantage of advances in knowledge engineering to broaden and refine searches based on related concepts. The NIF beta test site was developed to gain feedback on the NIF search interface and content. Users will be asked to search the NIF, explore the vocabularies, and answer a questionnaire about their experience.
Mike Chelen

Main Page - Open Bioinformatics Foundation - 0 views

www.open-bio.org/Main_Page

open biology informatics

shared by Mike Chelen on 22 Sep 08 - Cached
  • Mike Chelen on 22 Sep 08
     
    The Open Bioinformatics Foundation or O|B|F is a non profit, volunteer run organization focused on supporting open source programming in bioinformatics. The foundation grew out of the volunteer projects BioPerl, BioJava and BioPython and was formally incorporated in order to handle our modest requirements of hardware ownership, domain name management and funding for conferences and workshops.The Foundation does not participate directly in the development or structure of the open source work, but as the members of the foundation are drawn from the member projects, there is clear commonality of direction and purpose. Occasionally the O|B|F directors may make announcements about our direction or purpose (a recent one was on the licensing of academic software) when the board feels there is a need to clarify matters, but in general we prefer to remain simply the administrative support organization for our member projects. Our main activities are: * Underwriting and supporting the BOSC conferences * Organizing and supporting developer-centric "hackathon" events * Managing our servers, colocation facilities, bank account & other assets We are incorporated in the state of Delaware, USA as a not-for-profit company.
Mike Chelen

myGrid » Home - 0 views

www.mygrid.org.uk

science science2.0 open source

shared by Mike Chelen on 07 Jan 09 - Cached
  • Mike Chelen on 07 Jan 09
     
    The myGrid team produce and use a suite of tools designed to "help e-Scientists get on with science and get on with scientists". The tools support the creation of e-laboratories and have been used in domains as diverse as biology, social science, music, astronomy, text mining and chemistry. The tools have been adopted by a large number of projects and institutions. The team has developed tools and infrastructure to allow: * the design, editing and execution of workflows in Taverna * the sharing of workflows and related data by myExperiment * the cataloguing and annotation of services in BioCatalogue and Feta * the creation of user-friendly rich clients such as UTOPIA
Mike Chelen

Science in the open » A breakthrough on data licensing for public science? - 0 views

blog.openwetware.org/...a-licensing-for-public-science

open public science data license

shared by Mike Chelen on 15 May 09 - Cached
  • Peter Murray-Rust and others at the Unilever Centre for Molecular Informatics at Cambridge
  • conversation we had over lunch with Peter, Jim Downing, Nico Adams, Nick Day and Rufus Pollock
  • appropriate way to license published scientific data
  • ...27 more annotations...
  • value of share-alike or copyleft provisions of GPL and similar licenses
  • spreading the message and use of Open Content
  • prevent “freeloaders” from being able to use Open material and not contribute back to the open community
  • presumption in this view is that a license is a good, or at least acceptable, way of achieving both these goals
  • allow people the freedom to address their concerns through copyleft approaches
  • Rufus
  • concerned more centrally with enabling re-use and re-purposing of data as far as is possible
  • make it easy for researchers to deliver on their obligations
  • worried by the potential for licensing to make it harder to re-use and re-mix disparate sets of data and content into new digital objects
  • “license”, will have scientists running screaming in the opposite direction
  • we focused on what we could agree on
  • common position statement
  • area of best practice for the publication of data that arises from public science
  • there is a window of opportunity to influence funder positions
  • data sharing policies
  • “following best practice”
  • don’t tend to be concerned about freeloading
  • providing clear guidance and tools
  • if it is widely accepted by their research communities
  • “best practice is X”
  • enable re-use and re-purposing of that data
  • share-alike approaches as a community expectation
  • Explicit statements of the status of data are required and we need effective technical and legal infrastructure to make this easy for researchers.
  • “Where a decision has been taken to publish data deriving from public science research, best practice to enable the re-use and re-purposing of that data, is to place it explicitly in the public domain via {one of a small set of protocols e.g. cc0 or PDDL}.”
  • focuses purely on what should be done once a decision to publish has been made
  • data generated by public science
  • describing this as best practice it also allows deviations that may, for whatever reason, be justified by specific people in specific circumstances
1 - 7 of 7
Showing 20▼ items per page