[open-science] Fwd: Open data and Panton Principles

[Rufus Pollock]

On 28 June 2010 14:12, Jonathan Gray <jonathan.gray at okfn.org> wrote:
> A question from Libby Bishop at the UK Data Archive...
>
> Would be most interested to hear responses to this!
>
> Jonathan
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to establish which, if any "Open" organisations explicitly
> endorse open (public/free) access to data.
>
> I have read through the Panton Principles which seem to be the
> clearest, strongest statement of openness of which I am aware.
> However, in the FAQ, it says that the PP have not been formally
> adopted by OSI, FSF, or EFF.
>
> Moreover, according to Stevan Harnand and his recent posts on the
> American Scientist Open Access forum, OA advocates only open access to
> publications, but not research data.

I don't know whether this is consensus within OA but whether it is or
not doesn't really matter IMO since clearly open data is important in
its own right (and potentially even more important than simple OA to
the fulltext)

> Here at UKDA, we advocate free access to data for non-commercial use.
> However, the nature of some social science data, especially
> qualitative data, (confidentiality promises made, sensitive data,
> disclosure risks) obligates us to share data via a licence so that
> those "reusing" data do not violate the conditions and terms of use
> specified by the data depositor.

We really need a FAQ relating to confidentiality etc (we had one
started but I don't think it reached consensus ...). Basically, my
feeling here is that where there are good reasons (such as
confidentiality) where the data cannot be generally released then the
PP don't apply. However, once you are releasing data generally (e.g.
as must be the case where release the data under an NC license) the PP
do apply.

Thus my main comment to UKDA would be: remove the NC restriction --
non-commercial restrictions and confidentiality issues are completely
orthogonal so let's not confuse them.

> In sum, it sounds as though there is at least some variation among
> diverse "open" initiatives as to what extent data per se should be
> public and free.  Is this statement correct?  Any details you can add
> would be greatly appreciated.

That's likely given the wide-ranging views on any topic ...

Rufus

> Kind regards,
>
> Libby
>
> Libby Bishop, Ph.D.
> Research Data Management Senior Officer
> UK Data Archive-a service provider for the Economic and  Social Data
> Service (ESDS)
>
> www.esds.ac.uk/qualidata
>
>
>
>
>
> ********************************************************************
>
> Legal disclaimer:
>
> Any views expressed by the sender of this message are not necessarily
> those of the UKDA or the ESDS.  This email and any files transmitted
> with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the
> individual(s) or entity to whom they are addressed.
>
> *************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jonathan Gray
>
> Community Coordinator
> The Open Knowledge Foundation
> http://blog.okfn.org
>
> http://twitter.com/jwyg
> http://identi.ca/jwyg
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>



-- 
Open Knowledge Foundation
Promoting Open Knowledge in a Digital Age
http://www.okfn.org/ - http://blog.okfn.org/