[okfn-discuss] about open access but not open access

Sat May 4 20:09:06 UTC 2013

On Sat, 4 May 2013 07:20:52 -0700, "Marc Joffe" <marc at publicsectorcredit.org> said:

    > What tools one uses to
    > assemble the open data is not important (as long as the tools'
    > licenses do not restrict distribution of the work product).

Marc, I don't have a strong opinion about whether one should only
write open access things about open access. I think the moral argument
is a bit silly -- the justification should be that if you want your
work to matter, to be built upon, it has to be accessible. In
scientific and quasi-scientific disciplines where reproducability
of results matters, the whole process must be open otherwise if 
nobody can try the same experiment and come up with the same results,
it might all have been made up. No need for moral arguments (which
tend to get people's backs up anyways).

Now, the tools do matter. Because it means that without using those
tools, which I may not have access to (I don't),  I can't check your
work. This means I have to trust that you didn't make any errors
in creating the data, and if I do find errors I can't easily fix them
in a way that maintains the integrity of the process. This is very
important. Otherwise the open data comes out of a black box and we
have no way of knowing what it means or to what extent it can be
relied upon.

-w