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

[Tom Moritz]

Sorry -- the URL for the Power Point I cited should be:

"Tracking Metadata and Lineage of the Data Processing Chain for Mapping Snow
Cover Properties with the NASA MODIS"
by Jim Frew et al.

http://fiesta.bren.ucsb.edu/~dozier/Talks/IGARSS-Lineage-v3.ppt

(I inadvertently directed you to a separate discussion...!)

Tom
*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 10:36 AM, Tom Moritz <tom.moritz at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 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/20100920/4b0ed00c/attachment-0001.html>