[open-science] State of "Is it Open Data"?

Wed Sep 1 06:03:39 UTC 2010

Hi Cameron,

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Cameron Neylon
<cameron.neylon at stfc.ac.uk> wrote:
>> I do not fully understand the response... at one place I think they
>> say the data is CC-BY and at other places they say it is conform the
>> Panton Principles (CC0 or PDDL or any other public domain waiver)...
>> which is it?
>
> We've got a long way to go in making clear all of these distinctions. And at
> the same time we don't want to put off those people acting in good faith
> either.

Indeed, but of all places, this list would be the place to do it right, not?

> I know there are initiatives at both BMC and PLoS looking at how to
> handle this. It will require changes to the licensing arrangements (to have
> authors explicitly make data, intepreted generously as PD) as well as
> changes to the declarations made on each paper so its going to be tough but
> I think working with PLoS and BMC to come up with some good examples of how
> it can be done is the way forward here.

Yes, I am aware of this; and I think getting this 'legally' right is
very important. Actually, one of the reasons I asked about it...

> To do that you need to
> modify the publication agreements between author and publisher to make
> explicit the licensing arrangements for different components of the overall
> work. Which can't be done retrospectively really. So lots of work for the
> future.

Quite so.

(This is also why I commented on the JChemInf 'guidelines for the
authors', as any new journal can do it 'right' from the start...)

Egon

-- 
Dr E.L. Willighagen
Post-doc @ Uppsala University (only until 2010-09-30)
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