[open-bibliography] Wikipedia project: bibliographic-archival data base

Peter Murray-Rust pm286 at cam.ac.uk
Tue Sep 13 16:54:08 UTC 2011

On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Jim Pitman <pitman at stat.berkeley.edu>wrote:

> These two paragraphs contradict each other.
> Is LibraryCloud an open data provider, or not?
> Either data is open, and it is possible to get hold of the entire
> dataset with a clear open license for what you can so with it. Or it is not
> open.
> It is wrong to call data open if it is subject to arbitary access
> restrictions like 3K entries a day.

This is a major challenge for the OKF and I think we need to tackle it now.
The world is full of Free (but only to X), Open (but you can't use it for
Y), Open API (but only for a subset). These all have to be challenged.

There ARE objective technical problems with completely Open data resources
(e.g. what is the extent? what are the revisions? How do I get the whole
lot? etc.). These are not easy even with a clear understanding and goodwill.
Where the concepts are fuzzy it is much harder.

(I think I wrote the same thing to the Open Science list...)

Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-bibliography/attachments/20110913/ccb97332/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the open-bibliography mailing list