[open-science] On expressing access constraints in a repository of mixed openness

[Lance McKee]

Chris,

See the Geospatial Digital Rights Management Reference Model for (http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/as/geodrmrm 
).
Here's a magazine article about GeoDRM: http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=28323 
  .

I think the basic principles you seek to understand are in the GeoDRM,  
though the focus is on geospatial data. Geospatial data are  
particularly complex -- for example, there is frequently a need to  
track the rights information about different data "layers" that have  
been used to create a composite data layer.  So if this reference  
model can be applied to geospatial data, I think it is likely it can  
be adapted easily enough to work with other kinds of data.

Lance


Lance McKee
Senior Staff Writer
Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)
+1 508-752-0108
lmckee at opengeospatial.org

The OGC: Making location count...
http://www.opengeospatial.org/contact


On Sep 20, 2010, at 4:57 AM, Chris Rusbridge wrote:

> OK I'm looking for some more help again. I'm hoping that at the very  
> least the discipline of writing down my concern will help me  
> understand it better, and at best you guys have a solution.
>
> Let's imagine an institutional data repository (which I guess could  
> be a set of different repositories). By definition, the IDR will  
> have data that have different degrees of openness. I can distinguish  
> at least these conditions:
>
> a) fully open
> b) closed until some condition is met (then to be open)
> c) closed unless some condition is met
> d) closed indefinitely.
>
> I'm not really sure an IDR would actually want to accept data with  
> condition (d), but there may be good reasons that escape me at the  
> moment. But however much one would like all data to be open, there  
> are substantial swags of data that must be temporarily or partially  
> closed.
>
> Independently of conditions (b) to (d), it is possible that some or  
> all of the metadata might be open, that is to say the data might be  
> discoverable even if not open (presumably if you found and wanted to  
> use the data, then some sort of negotiation would have to take place).
>
> My question is: how could constraints like these sensibly be  
> expressed, in either a human-readable or (better) machine-readable  
> way?
>
> --
> Chris Rusbridge
> Mobile: +44 791 7423828
> Email: c.rusbridge at gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science