[open-science] Open Science Microformats/Pattern languages? was Re: Launch of the Panton Principles for Open Data in Science + Is It Open Data?

Thu Feb 25 04:19:56 UTC 2010

I'm checking this out and will get back to you - thanks Jean-Claude. jtw

On 2/24/10 7:56 PM, Jean-Claude Bradley wrote:
> We added this CC0 logo and license
> <a rel="license"
> href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/"
> style="text-decoration:none;">
> <img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/zero/1.0/88x31.png" border="0"
> alt="CC0" />
> </a>
>
> to the nav bar on the ONSC wiki
> http://onschallenge.wikispaces.com/
>
> and to the results of any solubility search:
> http://old.oru.edu/cccda/sl/solubility/allsolvents.php?solute=benzoic%2520acid
>
> Does this meet the requirements for machine readability of CC0 intent?
>
> Jean-Claude
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Cameron Neylon
> <cameron.neylon at stfc.ac.uk <mailto:cameron.neylon at stfc.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
>     I will be difficult and agree with both John and Peter :-)
>
>     I think we need two things. Some very simple instructions and/or a
>     service
>     for quickly generating the relevant graphic(s) and markup. Text
>     instructions
>     on the PP page and knock up a web service somewhere else? The key is
>     to make
>     it as easy as possible and to not confuse people with issues of the
>     difference between buttons, legal waivers, and badges.
>
>     Secondly to look at where we could start baking this into processes to
>     provide good examples of practice. Is it for example possible to (as an
>     option of course) bake a licence into ATOM feeds in Clarion for
>     instance? I
>     was talking with Andrew from the SAGE project yesterday about capturing
>     processes and release data formats so maybe this is another good
>     place where
>     we could bake the addition of appropriate buttons and legal terms
>     into the
>     analysis process?
>
>     Also agree with John that avoiding letters in circles is a good idea
>     but for
>     a slightly different reason. The circle references copyright and
>     that is one
>     reference I think we want to avoid as far as possible. As an aside I
>     find it
>     interesting that everyone makes the connection between "letters in
>     circle"
>     and creative commons reference rather than to copyright. This is great
>     progress to me!
>
>     Cheers
>
>     Cameron
>
>     On 24/02/2010 02:21, "Jonathan Gray" <jonathan.gray at okfn.org
>     <mailto:jonathan.gray at okfn.org>> wrote:
>
>      > I agree with John that in order to be compliant (as stated in the
>      > principles) data publishers should use a legal tool like CC0 or PDDL
>      > or have some other explicit legal statement about the data. Just
>      > linking to the Panton Principles is not sufficient to show that data
>      > is open. It is equivalent someone wearing a badge saying 'I support
>      > vegetarianism' - which does not say whether or not the person wearing
>      > it is a vegetarian.
>      >
>      > Perhaps it could be useful to have a brief guide to making data open
>      > using existing legal tools on Panton Principles site? I.e. CC0/PDDL?
>      > (Which is of course not to say that there aren't other ways of
>     putting
>      > things in public domain...)
>      >
>      > All the best,
>      >
>      > Jonathan
>      >
>      >
>      > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Egon Willighagen
>      > <egon.willighagen at gmail.com <mailto:egon.willighagen at gmail.com>>
>     wrote:
>      >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 9:31 AM, John Wilbanks
>      >> <wilbanks at creativecommons.org
>     <mailto:wilbanks at creativecommons.org>> wrote:
>      >>> 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.
>      >>
>      >> I have seen people claim data as OpenData... but I have too been
>     so so
>      >> comfortable using this data, because of the lack of standardized
>      >> waiver (/license)... I endorse PP because it indeed strongly
>      >> encourages to do that.
>      >>
>      >> I would also say that just claiming OpenData without waiver is not
>      >> quite in compliance with the principles... at least, that's how
>     I read
>      >> them.
>      >>
>      >> Egon
>      >>
>      >> --
>      >> Post-doc @ Uppsala University
>      >> Proteochemometrics / Bioclipse Group of Prof. Jarl Wikberg
>      >> Homepage: http://egonw.github.com/
>      >> Blog: http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/
>      >> PubList: http://www.citeulike.org/user/egonw/tag/papers
>      >>
>      >> _______________________________________________
>      >> open-science mailing list
>      >> open-science at lists.okfn.org <mailto:open-science at lists.okfn.org>
>      >> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>      >>
>      >
>      >
>
>     --
>     Scanned by iCritical.
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     open-science mailing list
>     open-science at lists.okfn.org <mailto:open-science at lists.okfn.org>
>     http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jean-Claude Bradley, Ph. D.
> E-Learning Coordinator for the College of Arts and Sciences
> Associate Professor of Chemistry
> Drexel University
>
> http://usefulchem.blogspot.com
> http://drexel-coas-elearning.blogspot.com
> http://drexel-coas-talks-mp3-podcast.blogspot.com/
> http://friendfeed.com/jcbradley
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science