[okfn-discuss] [Fwd: Re: [SPARC-OpenData] Call for action]

[Rufus Pollock]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [SPARC-OpenData] Call for action
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:39:23 +0000
From: Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org>
To: SPARC-OpenData <SPARC-OpenData at arl.org>
References: <list-11365769 at arl.org>

Dear Peter and fellow list members,

As you will recall a few weeks ago we had several lengthy conversations
  about the open knowledge definition:

   http://okd.okfn.org/

Since then I've been meaning to write up a proper summary of my views on
the open data/knowledge debate. However as I have not yet had the chance
to produce a full piece I'd like to share my views so far.

First from reading discussion here and elsewhere I feel it is very
important to draw a distinction between definitions and movements/
campaigns/initiatives. This can be exemplified by the distinction
between the statements:

   1. This is 'open access' journal. (description adjective)
   2. Are you for 'open access'? (noun describing a movement)

And analogously:

   1. This is a piece of open data/knowledge. (data which is open)
   2. Are you supportive of open data/knowledge? ('open data' as movement)

Using this distinction helps clarify various things:

1. We should first define what we mean by open data in the first sense
(i.e. 'open' data = data which is open). This is the purpose of the open
knowledge definition (http://okd.okfn.org/) which just like the open
source definition for software lays down principles which open
knowledge/data licences must conform to. The big point here is that this
is *just* a definition. It just tells you what you mean by 'open' not
when stuff should be open. Once you have got a bunch of principles you
can craft a licence that embodies them.

2. The next point is to get clear what the open data movement is -- at
least in relation to science. What data should be open and when etc etc.
This question is strongly related to discussion of 'open science' or
'open notebook science' and is about what people *should* do.

3. Creative commons are basically set of *licenses* while science
commons is a movement. Furthermore not all creative commons licenses are
'open' as per the open knowledge definition so we have to be a bit
careful about just saying to people: 'use a creative commons license'.
For more on this visit the conformant licences page of the OKD:
http://okd.okfn.org/licenses

Given this division the obvious course of action is:

1. Agree on principles on a definition of open data (in my opinion this
is already provided by the open knowledge definition -- which could be
suitably renamed as necessary).

2. Find/create a licence (or licences) which are conformant

3. Encourage people to consider attaching one of these licences to data
they produce

4. (later) debate exactly what data (and how much of it) should be 'open'

Regards,

Rufus

peter murray-rust wrote:
> At 07:25 12/12/2006, AJ Chen wrote:
>> Peter,
>> I'd like to hear more discussion on open data, too. In particular, 
>> what are the practical approaches that will help adoption of open data 
>> by researchers themselves? We all know technology is not the big issue 
>> here. The biggest challenge is how to get researchers to share their 
>> raw experiment data on the web. Because this is quite different from 
>> traditional publication, a big uphill battle is  expected.
> 
> Great!
> This has catalysed me to suggest a simple, unstoppable, meme which I 
> have blogged:
> http://wwmm.ch.cam.ac.uk/blogs/murrayrust/?p=216
> The only thing standing in its way is apathy.
> 
> I'm now asking this list (and my blogreaders) to make it work. The idea 
> is simple. Get Creative Commons or Science Commons licenses into every 
> piece of published scientific data. It's zero cost. As I suggest it can 
> even be emitted by the software used to produce the data.
> 
> I hope that members of this list can see the immediacy of this meme (BTW 
> memes don't belong to people, so it not "my idea"). We need a simple 
> name (e.g. Open Data License), and advocacy. I am sure there are lots of 
> members of this list who know what to do.
> 
> But you must be vocal... and constructive.
> 
> P.
> 
>>>
>>
>> Peter Murray-Rust
>> Unilever Centre for Molecular Sciences Informatics
>> University of Cambridge,
>> Lensfield Road,  Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK
>> +44-1223-763069 
> 
> 
> ==========
> 
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>  The SPARC-OpenData Mail List.
> To post, send your message to <SPARC-OpenData at arl.org>.
> To unsubscribe, email to <SPARC-OpenData-off at arl.org>.
> To switch to digest mode, email to <SPARC-OpenData-digest at arl.org>.
> Send administrative queries to <SPARC-OpenData-request at arl.org>.
> 


-- 
Director, Open Knowledge Foundation
m: +44 (0)7795 176 976
www: http://www.okfn.org/ | blog: http://blog.okfn.org/