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

[Peter Murray-Rust]

Libby,
Many thanks for your enquiry which is now on the open-science list at OKF. I
am one of the 4 authors of the PP


---------- Forwarded message ----------
>
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to establish which, if any "Open" organisations explicitly
> endorse open (public/free) access to data.
>

This is an excellent endeavour and the more people and organizations
involved the more comprehensive we hope we can become.

>
> 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.
>

That's partly because I don't think they have been formally asked, and
partly because the PP cover data rather than code - although clearly
related. If these orgs wish to endorse the PP obviously that would be good.


>
> 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.
>

PP covers data, OA covers (mainly) scholarly publishing or journals,
articles, and some monographs. In practice they are largely distinct.

It can be argued that an OA publication that uses a CC-BY or similarly
strong libre licence also covers the data in the publication. We saw
considerable problems with that approach and that is why an explict
PP-compliant statement on data should also be made.

In practice we would expect that publishers who publish journals licensed
through CC-BY (or similar) are likely to be enthusiastic proponents of
PP-compliant labelling of the data in, or associated with, the publication.
The problem comes with weaker licences such as CC-NC or with self-archiving
where no formal permissions are given.

In practice in science several publishers expose data associated with
closed-access publications. We hope that the community can persuade them to
label them as PP-compliant. For this we have created a tool to ask the
publishers (or any other data providers) if their data are PP-compliant (see
http://www.isitopendata.org/ )


> 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.
>
> 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.
>

There is great variation, some of which is unavoidable but a lot of which
can be eliminated by spreading the word and the tools. It's worth continuing
to follow the open-science list and asking questions :-)

>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20100628/eea4b666/attachment-0001.html>