No subject
Fri Feb 12 23:10:20 UTC 2010
, I would say there are two things worth considering.
The first one is concerned with legal issues regarding copyright. As far as=
I understood, but this may not be true for other countries, the contractor=
s of archaeological 'heritage management' research can legally claim the ri=
ght of distribution of data and reports (note that the 'intellectual copyri=
ght' always remains with the researcher). They can thereby restrict access =
to data and reports to trusted parties. In the Netherlands, this has been r=
e-interpreted in 2007 to the degree that reports and data have to be made a=
ccessible to registered archaeologists through digital repositories. As far=
as I can tell, this policy is mostly adhered to in the case of commercial =
digs, although contractors can still enforce an embargo for a limited perio=
d of time. This system can easily be extended to situations where we are de=
aling with data that will be used for scientific publication, but it can ob=
viously not be forced on amateurs that are not accountable for what they do=
with their data.
The second thing is the accessibility of government data (open government i=
s the current buzzword). Quite a bit of archaeological data falls into this=
category, and regardless whether we are afraid of treasure hunters, this h=
as to be made available to the general public in one form or another. A wel=
l-known case in the Netherlands is the 'Landmark sentence'; a British compa=
ny went to court to force the city of Amsterdam to make data on soil contam=
ination available to them for free (http://www.raadvanstate.nl/uitspraken/z=
oeken_in_uitspraken/zoekresultaat/?verdict_id=3D35424). They could then res=
ell digests of this to interested customers who wanted to build a house and=
know whether there were any restrictions on the building site or potential=
problems in the soil (archaeology clearly falls into the same category). W=
hile in this particular case the judgement was that investments made by the=
city of Amsterdam did not justify the fees they asked, it also means that =
governments can still ask money for data if they can prove that they have p=
aid themselves for the construction and maintenance of the databases.
So it seems there are quite clear legal precedents that could be used to su=
pport the kind of open data approach you are advocating, but I think the fi=
nancial issue might be more tricky in this respect
Best wishes,
Philip Verhagen
From: open-archaeology-bounces at lists.okfn.org [mailto:open-archaeology-boun=
ces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Beck
Sent: dinsdag 11 mei 2010 11:58
To: open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org
Subject: [open-archaeology] Ethics, archaeology and open data
Dear All,
I thought it about time to raise the spectre of open approaches and ethics.=
Of recent I have chatted to a number of people and organisations who want =
to open up their data. The conversation always comes back to the ethical is=
sues. I'd like us to generate a statement or a set of ethical principles to=
help move this forward.
Like other disciplines, such as ecology, there are potential ethical issues=
to making our data open. I personally think the benefits outweigh the cost=
s. However, that is not the point: this is going to be a recurring question=
and, as a group, we should be able to provide a position statement to prov=
ide clarity. I'm sure we can get advice/feedback on such a statement from n=
ational heritage agencies (RCHMS etc.), umbrella institutions (ICOMOS etc.)=
, extant repositories (ADS, HEAcademy) and global affiliates (Earthwatch et=
c.).
Anyway, the position as I see it:
* there is an ingrained friction to providing open data
* complex underpinning rationale:
* contract units (whose data is it anyway?)
* national bodies (organisations inertia)
* academics (stealing of publication thunder? Does anyone have any=
documented evidence that this has EVER happened?)
* individuals (it's just not something people are used to doing)
* Public access is provided to some data (either patchy coverage or gene=
ralised)
* Regional and national monuments record
* Repositories (like the ADS: offering static as opposed to dynamic d=
ata holdings)
* The really interesting and useful stuff is grey (source data is silo-e=
d and inaccessible)
The oft touted reason, in the UK at least, is that if access is given to th=
is information then it will be exploited by "night hawkers" (irresponsible =
metal-detectorists) and other "treasure hunters" and sites (I don't like th=
at word) will be destroyed. This is obviously biased and plays to the lowes=
t common denominator. It does not bring into play any of the benefits that =
data sharing can provide.
I think the opposite argument is about those archaeologists who have sat on=
their archive for 10's of years. We know of its significance but it is not=
available for academic and research analysis and does not inform the plann=
ing process. It is in someone's attic waiting to be written up in their dot=
age. This has enormous impact on local planning policy, public and academic=
understanding, theory, practice etc. etc. Since PPG16 came in (essentially=
commercial archaeology) in the UK (early 90s (?)) there has been less of t=
his approach. However, there are a number of locations where these grey rec=
ords are the most intact heritage statements for substantial areas of the U=
K.
In my mind those are the polarised worst case ethical scenarios. Somewhere =
in between lies the path of reason. So basically I'm asking:
* Is this the kind of thing we should do?
* Who should do it (I'm happy to lead or just to participate: if this fl=
oats someone elses boat)?
* Do we need legal advice (can OKFN help in this capacity - you do, afte=
r all, have some lawyers on board)
* Should we align this with other international organisations (I think s=
o: UNESCO, ICOMOS and EAC spring to mind)
Any thoughts?
Ant
As an aside I believe the heritage system, or the UK heritage system at lea=
st, has too much of a bias towards the generation of synthetic material: ti=
me and money, IMHO, that could be better spent on putting the data in order=
and making it available. How can we realistically advocate informed region=
al research agendas (which we do in the UK) when the data to support these =
agendas is not available or generalised to such an extent that it is not us=
eful?
--_000_A5B8EF4C90F68849861ED132CBDE77173D2AC16D3AXchange02letv_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr=
osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http:=
//www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1129125265;
mso-list-template-ids:1045047842;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:72.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:108.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1552039822;
mso-list-template-ids:-686508168;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=3DNL link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>
<div class=3DSection1>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",=
"sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>From this side of the pond, and my own limited experience wi=
th
these issues, I would say there are two things worth considering. <o:p></o:=
p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",=
"sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",=
"sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>The first one is concerned with legal issues regarding
copyright. As far as I understood, but this may not be true for other
countries, the contractors of archaeological 'heritage management' research=
can
legally claim the right of distribution of data and reports (note that the =
'intellectual
copyright' always remains with the researcher). They can thereby restrict
access to data and reports to trusted parties. In the Netherlands, this has
been re-interpreted in 2007 to the degree that reports and data have to be =
made
accessible to registered archaeologists through digital repositories. As fa=
r as
I can tell, this policy is mostly adhered to in the case of commercial digs=
, although
contractors can still enforce an embargo for a limited period of time. This=
system
can easily be extended to situations where we are dealing with data that wi=
ll
be used for scientific publication, but it can obviously not be forced on
amateurs that are not accountable for what they do with their data. <o:p></=
o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",=
"sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",=
"sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>The second thing is the accessibility of government data (op=
en
government is the current buzzword). Quite a bit of archaeological data fal=
ls
into this category, and regardless whether we are afraid of treasure hunter=
s, this
has to be made available to the general public in one form or another. A we=
ll-known
case in the Netherlands is the 'Landmark sentence'; a British company went =
to
court to force the city of Amsterdam to make data on soil contamination ava=
ilable
to them for free (</span><span class=3Dapple-style-span><span style=3D'font=
-size:
9.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black'>http://www.raadvanstat=
e.nl/uitspraken/zoeken_in_uitspraken/zoekresultaat/?verdict_id=3D35424)</sp=
an></span><span
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'=
>. They
could then resell digests of this to interested customers who wanted to bui=
ld a
house and know whether there were any restrictions on the building site or
potential problems in the soil (archaeology clearly falls into the same
category). While in this particular case the judgement was that investments
made by the city of Amsterdam did not justify the fees they asked, it also
means that governments can still ask money for data if they can prove that =
they
have paid themselves for the construction and maintenance of the databases.=
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",=
"sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",=
"sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>So it seems there are quite clear legal precedents that coul=
d be
used to support the kind of open data approach you are advocating, but I th=
ink
the financial issue might be more tricky in this respect<o:p></o:p></span><=
/p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",=
"sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",=
"sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Best wishes,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",=
"sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",=
"sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Philip Verhagen<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",=
"sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style=3D'border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm =
0cm 0cm'>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><b><span lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-f=
amily:
"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-siz=
e:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> open-archaeology-bounces at lists.okfn.org
[mailto:open-archaeology-bounces at lists.okfn.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Anthon=
y
Beck<br>
<b>Sent:</b> dinsdag 11 mei 2010 11:58<br>
<b>To:</b> open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [open-archaeology] Ethics, archaeology and open data<o:p></=
o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt=
:auto'>Dear
All,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt=
:auto'>I
thought it about time to raise the spectre of open approaches and ethics. O=
f
recent I have chatted to a number of people and organisations who want to o=
pen
up their data. The conversation always comes back to the ethical issues.
I’d like us to generate a statement or a set of ethical principles to
help move this forward.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt=
:auto'>Like
other disciplines, such as ecology, there are potential ethical issues to
making our data open. I personally think the benefits outweigh the costs.
However, that is not the point: this is going to be a recurring question an=
d,
as a group, we should be able to provide a position statement to provide
clarity. I’m sure we can get advice/feedback on such a statement from
national heritage agencies (RCHMS etc.), umbrella institutions (ICOMOS etc.=
),
extant repositories (ADS, HEAcademy) and global affiliates (Earthwatch etc.=
).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt=
:auto'>Anyway,
the position as I see it:<o:p></o:p></p>
<ul type=3Ddisc>
<li class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-a=
lt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>there is an ingrained friction to providing o=
pen
data <o:p></o:p></li>
<ul type=3Dcircle>
<li class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-=
alt:
auto;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo1'>complex underpinning rationale: <o:p></=
o:p></li>
<ul type=3Dsquare>
<li class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom=
-alt:
auto;mso-list:l0 level3 lfo1'>contract units (whose data is it anywa=
y?)<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom=
-alt:
auto;mso-list:l0 level3 lfo1'>national bodies (organisations inertia=
)<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom=
-alt:
auto;mso-list:l0 level3 lfo1'>academics (stealing of publication
thunder? Does anyone have any documented evidence that this has EVER
happened?)<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom=
-alt:
auto;mso-list:l0 level3 lfo1'>individuals (it’s just not somet=
hing
people are used to doing)<o:p></o:p></li>
</ul>
</ul>
<li class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-a=
lt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>Public access is provided to some data (eithe=
r
patchy coverage or generalised)<o:p></o:p></li>
<ul type=3Dcircle>
<li class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-=
alt:
auto;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo1'>Regional and national monuments record<=
o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-=
alt:
auto;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo1'>Repositories (like the ADS: offering st=
atic
as opposed to dynamic data holdings)<o:p></o:p></li>
</ul>
<li class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-a=
lt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>The really interesting and useful stuff is gr=
ey
(source data is silo-ed and inaccessible)<o:p></o:p></li>
</ul>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt=
:auto'>The
oft touted reason, in the UK at least, is that if access is given to this
information then it will be exploited by “night hawkers”
(irresponsible metal-detectorists) and other “treasure hunters”=
and
sites (I don’t like that word) will be destroyed. This is obviously
biased and plays to the lowest common denominator. It does not bring into p=
lay
any of the benefits that data sharing can provide.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt=
:auto'>I
think the opposite argument is about those archaeologists who have sat on t=
heir
archive for 10’s of years. We know of its significance but it is not
available for academic and research analysis and does not inform the planni=
ng
process. It is in someone’s attic waiting to be written up in their
dotage. This has enormous impact on local planning policy, public and acade=
mic
understanding, theory, practice etc. etc. Since PPG16 came in (essentially
commercial archaeology) in the UK (early 90s (?)) there has been less of th=
is
approach. However, there are a number of locations where these grey records=
are
the most intact heritage statements for substantial areas of the UK.<o:p></=
o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt=
:auto'>In
my mind those are the polarised worst case ethical scenarios. Somewhere in
between lies the path of reason. So basically I'm asking:<o:p></o:p></p>
<ul type=3Ddisc>
<li class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-a=
lt:auto;
mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2'>Is this the kind of thing we should do?<o:p><=
/o:p></li>
<li class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-a=
lt:auto;
mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2'>Who should do it (I'm happy to lead or just t=
o
participate: if this floats someone elses boat)?<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-a=
lt:auto;
mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2'>Do we need legal advice (can OKFN help in thi=
s
capacity - you do, after all, have some lawyers on board)<o:p></o:p></=
li>
<li class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-a=
lt:auto;
mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2'>Should we align this with other international
organisations (I think so: UNESCO, ICOMOS and EAC spring to mind)<o:p>=
</o:p></li>
</ul>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt=
:auto'>Any
thoughts?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt=
:auto'><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt=
:auto'>Ant<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt=
:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt=
:auto'>As
an aside I believe the heritage system, or the UK heritage system at least,=
has
too much of a bias towards the generation of synthetic material: time and
money, IMHO, that could be better spent on putting the data in order and ma=
king
it available. How can we realistically advocate informed regional research
agendas (which we do in the UK) when the data to support these agendas is n=
ot
available or generalised to such an extent that it is not useful?<o:p></o:p=
></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt=
:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
--_000_A5B8EF4C90F68849861ED132CBDE77173D2AC16D3AXchange02letv_--
More information about the open-archaeology
mailing list