[open-science] open-science Digest, Vol 17, Issue 7

Wed Mar 24 15:34:49 UTC 2010

Thank you, John and Tom, for your comments.

I cleaned up after myself, taking your comments into account as best as I could:
http://piratepad.net/ep/pad/view/LgLRcGLw35/rev.7354 .

Daniel

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Tom Moritz <tom.moritz at gmail.com> wrote:
> John's comments are important and point up a fundamental issue respecting
> making disclosed
> data effective / useful.  Data placed on an electronic billboard next to the
> Santa Monica Freeway
> are openly available but are virtually useless except by a series of
> cumbersome machinations...
>
> At a time when government agencies in the US are being pushed to disclose
> data it is essential
> that we develop guidelines and standards for making disclosed data directly
> useful -- not just "informative"...
>
> The IPCC situation ("Climate-gate") has made all the more clear why the
> precise lineages and provenance of data
> -- the record of scientific work flow, transformations, combinations and
> recombinations -- must be readily available for
> review and assessment...
>
> Tom
>
> Tom Moritz
> 1968 1/2 South Shenandoah Street,
> Los Angeles, California 90034
> USA
> +1 310 963 0199 (cell)
> tommoritz (Skype)
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/tmoritz
>
> “Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει” (Everything flows, nothing stands still.)
> --Heraclitus
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 6:19 AM, John Wilbanks
> <wilbanks at creativecommons.org> wrote:
>>
>> I sent a version of this to Daniel privately, but he noted that perhaps it
>> might have gone to the list as well. It ties into Cameron's point about
>> avoiding this question entirely in the PP, but also into the importance of
>> understanding what "open data" actually means.
>>
>> Remember that "open" in the sense of the SC protocol, the OKF definition
>> and the panton principles is about the *intellectual property* rights
>> associated with data - copyrights, database rights - and *contractual
>> property* rights associated with data products. Open doesn't mean it's free
>> of constraints like privacy, and it also doesn't mean the data are actually
>> *useful* - curated, annotated, explained.
>>
>> Privacy rights are vastly complex and cannot be waived with public
>> licenses like intellectual property rights. there is a complex process known
>> as "informed consent" that must be achieved before privacy rights can be
>> legally waived, and that consent must be vetted through a process approved
>> by an institution's IRB (institutional review board). The IRB terms govern
>> the movement of data, under application by researchers.
>>
>> Thus, data can indeed be "open" under the PP but not made available to the
>> world, as the PP only touch on the IP aspects of data. Privacy rights create
>> a major driver for using the public domain on data actually, as the
>>  prevalence of privacy rights on vast swaths of science data - be clinical
>> health data or social science research - renders those data incompatible
>> with "viral" sharing regimes on data, as many viral regimes disallow the
>> addition of content that cannot itself be made viral.
>>
>> When the data is in the PD, it can flow into a clinical or social science
>> database, and then be redistributed under the terms that the IRB set forward
>> for the original data, as redistribution of data is invaluable in these
>> fields, albeit under much tighter restrictions than we associate with "open"
>> science.
>>
>> We're working on standardizing IRB agreements right now at Creative
>> Commons, based on our years of experience with the huntingtons, parkinsons,
>> alzheimers, and other rare disease communities that deal with privacy issues
>> in the clinical space. these are in many ways the easy ones, because the
>> diseases involved make informed consent easier to get. informed consent for
>> healthy control subjects is going to be the harder problem. and in social
>> science the issues may be irresolvable - deidentification is so easy these
>> days, and getting easier.
>>
>> We're also working on standards for publishing data sets in a format that
>> is actively "re-useful" and will be publishing a set of recommendations
>> tomorrow in conjunction with the PLoS Forum that encode the PP as the legal
>> part of a multivariate problem of making online data actively reusable.
>>
>> I would prefer the FAQs not overstate the power of "open" from an IP
>> perspective. Data that is online but burdened with privacy, or with poor
>> curation and annotation, lacking persistent URIs, and so forth - that data
>> meets the principles, but is likely to be of little use to a working
>> scientist. We run the risk of overheated expectations if we simply say "raw
>> data now" - the reality is far more complex, and we're not all Tim BL ):-)
>>
>> jtw
>>
>>
>> On 3/23/10 2:35 AM, Cameron Neylon wrote:
>>>
>>> The original idea behind the Panton Principles was that we sidestep this
>>> issue. The key point being that where there are privacy issues (or other
>>> issues) you simply do not choose to publish the data. The PP are not, at
>>> least as far as the bullet points are concerned, to dictate when, how, or
>>> if
>>> data are published.
>>>
>>> The PP are intended to be applied after the decision has been taken to
>>> publish the data. And by "publish" we meant to be extremely general -
>>> hence
>>> the addition I made the other day to the FAQ. I think it is important to
>>> be
>>> clear on this point because the term "publish" often means something very
>>> different to different people. And for many researchers it explicitly
>>> doesn't include "make available on the web".
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Cameron
>>>
>>>
>>> On 23/03/2010 13:26, "daniel.mietchen at googlemail.com"
>>> <daniel.mietchen at googlemail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Iain,
>>>
>>> on the first point, what do you think of the current
>>>>
>>>> phrasing
>>>
>>> "Respecting the privacy of research subjects should be an
>>>>
>>>> integral
>>>
>>> part of the decision whether to make the data Open."?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> With kind regards,
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Iain
>>>> Hrynaszkiewicz
>>>
>>> <Iain.Hrynaszkiewicz at biomedcentral.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Writing from a publisher that is keen to make data available, I'd like
>>>> to
>>>> point out two sets of guidance relevant to some matters arising from
>>>> the
>>>> pirate pad discussions on the Panton Principles.
>>>>
>>>> Firstly, the issue of
>>>> protecting privacy in human subject research. This
>>>> is a major barrier to the
>>>> sharing of clinical information and I wonder
>>>> if it is being glossed over in
>>>> the FAQ (13). Some practical guidance on
>>>> openly sharing clinical data was
>>>> published in the BMJ earlier this year,
>>>> for example:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/jan28_1/c181
>>>>
>>>> Secondly, applying PP
>>>> prior to publication. At BioMed Central, for
>>>> example, we encourage openly
>>>> sharing data before formal publication [in
>>>> a peer-reviewed journal] and
>>>> encourage editors to not preclude open
>>>> projects from publication.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/duplicatepublication
>>>> So perhaps PP
>>>> should be applied more uniformly, without the need to
>>>> clarify what
>>>> 'publication' is.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Iain
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Iain Hrynaszkiewicz
>>>>
>>>> Managing Editor
>>>> BioMed Central
>>>> Floor 6, 236 Gray's Inn Road
>>>> London, WC1X
>>>> 8HL
>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3192 2175
>>>> F: +44 (0)20 3192 2011
>>>> W:
>>>> www.biomedcentral.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From:
>>>> open-science-bounces at lists.okfn.org
>>>>
>>>> [mailto:open-science-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of
>>>>
>>>> open-science-request at lists.okfn.org
>>>> Sent: 18 March 2010 12:00
>>>> To:
>>>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>>>> Subject: open-science Digest, Vol 17, Issue
>>>> 7
>>>>
>>>> Send open-science mailing list submissions to
>>>>
>>>>  open-science at lists.okfn.org
>>>>
>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World
>>>> Wide Web, visit
>>>>        http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>>>>
>>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>>>
>>>>  open-science-request at lists.okfn.org
>>>>
>>>> You can reach the person managing the
>>>> list at
>>>>        open-science-owner at lists.okfn.org
>>>>
>>>> When replying, please
>>>> edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>>> than "Re: Contents of
>>>> open-science digest..."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Today's Topics:
>>>>
>>>>   1. FAQs for the Panton
>>>> Principles and Open Data (Peter Murray-Rust)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Message: 1
>>>> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:43:47 +0000
>>>> From: Peter Murray-Rust
>>>> <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>
>>>> Subject: [open-science] FAQs for the Panton Principles and
>>>> Open Data
>>>> To: open-science<open-science at lists.okfn.org>
>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>
>>>>    <67fd68331003170943h3ab178d5y64f9086c3af5c597 at mail.gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>>>
>>>> We are talking to a variety
>>>> of editors and publishers who are keen to
>>>> make
>>>> data "open available" and
>>>> in many cases mandate it as part of the
>>>> scientific
>>>> process. It's clear
>>>> that although PP are (I hope) fairly
>>>> self-explanatory
>>>> the implications
>>>> (licences, buttons, "public domain", community norms,
>>>> etc.)
>>>> are unclear
>>>> and need careful explanation. One way to do this is through
>>>> FAQs
>>>> and we
>>>> (Rufus, Cameron, Jonathan + me) are asking for the help of the
>>>> OpenScience
>>>> list to provide useful communal answers. I'll post the FAQs
>>>> -
>>>> feel welcome
>>>> to add to them but not TOO many - and ask you to create
>>>> answers. There is a
>>>> pirate pad at:
>>>>
>>>> http://piratepad.net/LgLRcGLw35
>>>>
>>>> Please use to edit,
>>>> discuss, hack etc.
>>>>
>>>> We will appreciate rapid feedback as we hope to promote
>>>> this to
>>>> attendees at
>>>> the AmerChemicalSoc (ACS) next week.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> 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/20100317/a4e49
>>>>
>>>> f69/attachment-0001.htm>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> open-science mailing list
>>>>
>>>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> End of open-science
>>>> Digest, Vol 17, Issue 7
>>>> *******************************************
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> open-science mailing list
>>>>
>>>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>>
>>> http://www.google.com/profiles/daniel.mietchen
>>>
>>> _____________________________
>>>>
>>>> __________________
>>>
>>> open-science mailing
>>>>
>>>> list
>>>
>>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-s
>>>>
>>>> cience
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-science mailing list
>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>
>

-- 
http://www.google.com/profiles/daniel.mietchen