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

[Tom Moritz]

Whether an individual IDR would want to deal with data sets that are
constrained to various degrees -- "varied constraint" is certainly
the condition of corpus of data relevant to many key scientific problems?

This discussion brought to mind the Bose and Frew article from 2005 --
"Lineage retrieval for scientific data processing: a survey"
[SEE: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1057978 ] (and a companion PPT
"  Tracking Metadata and Lineage of the Data Processing Chain for Mapping
Snow Cover Properties with the NASA MODIS" [SEE: http://tiny.cc/xpe37 ]* )
*
It seems to me that the terms of access for data are logically a subset of
the full description of data and lineage...? And that what we're after are
descriptive capacity to represent "terms of embargo as well as less precise
forms of constraint?"

*

Tom Moritz
1968 1/2 South Shenandoah Street,
Los Angeles, California 90034-1208  USA
+1 310 963 0199 (cell) [GMT -8]
tommoritz (Skype)
http://www.linkedin.com/in/tmoritz*

“Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει” (Everything flows, nothing stands still.) --*
Heraclitus *
* "Il faut imaginer Sisyphe heureux."  ("One must imagine Sisyphus happy.")
-- Camus

*

Please think of trees before you print.




On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 1:57 AM, Chris Rusbridge <c.rusbridge at googlemail.com
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20100920/700d4dba/attachment-0001.html>