[open-science] Open Science Microformats/Pattern languages? was Re: Launch of the Panton Principles for Open Data in Science + Is It Open Data?
wilbanks at creativecommons.org
Wed Feb 24 08:31:53 UTC 2010
Sorry to be pedantic here, but if you do not use a legal tool, you are
not in compliance with the principles. In the absence of a legal tool
the data *are not open* by default, especially in the uk and the eu.
These principles will mean very little if the data they attach to are
not legally open.
On 2/24/10, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 6:18 AM, John Wilbanks <wilbanks at creativecommons.org
>> We tend to prefer RDFa over microformats, as it is infinitely more
>> Also, I would caution against badging the principles without adding
>> information to data. Self-asserting the principles does not actually
>> with the principles - only the use of an unambiguous legal tool opens up
> I am an advocate of just adding the button. I understand and support the
> work on legal agreements but the scientist must be freed from making
> decisions about these as far as possible. I (or my colleagues - human and
> otherwise) have created about 150,000 buttons:
> and it would be worse if we we hadn't. That data is "Open Data". It points
> to the OKD page and if Rufus/John want to refine what is on that page,
> great. It's a meta statement.
> There's a greater danger that I blow myself up in the laboratory than that
> the "Open Data" button misfires. I'll worry about the former.
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
More information about the open-science