[open-science] Data governance - any recommendations to research funders?

cameron.neylon at stfc.ac.uk cameron.neylon at stfc.ac.uk
Thu Dec 15 18:08:09 UTC 2011

One way to think about it is that the OKF position is driven by a philosophical commitment to the idea and value of open stuff, as expressed in the open knowledge definition, whereas the Science Commons position was driven very strongly by a focus on inoperability. This meant that for instance OKF was philosophically committed to the notion of making it possible to have data licenses that matched the OD (including share alike and attribution) while the SC position arose out of a looking at what would make things most interoperable and concerns over risks about non interoperability lead to eg the recommendation for PD for data. It's a lot more complex than that but I think that gives some insight into how the various views developed.



On 15 Dec 2011, at 17:47, "Rufus Pollock" <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:

> On 14 December 2011 15:42, Daniel Mietchen
> <daniel.mietchen at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> The meetings is on and can be followed via the #datagov11 hashtag
>> http://twitter.com/search/realtime/datagov11 .
>> Was just asked about the main difference between the OKF and CC
>> approaches to licensing. Didn't really know what to say, other than
>> that OKF is focused on "open" and CC on "sharing".
> Not so sure about that: the reason we care about open is because it
> facilitates sharing and reuse (we're not into openness just for its
> own sake).
> At least regarding science I think the two orgs are even closer than
> that (in fact CC may be even stronger on 'open' than OKFN in that, as
> I understand it, CC's default position for science data is public
> domain only).
> Rufus
>> Daniel
>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Daniel Mietchen
>> <daniel.mietchen at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>> thanks to all of you who have reacted to my message. I have edited the
>>> wiki page a bit more and invite you to take another look. Edits are
>>> welcome too.
>>> Thanks and cheers,
>>> Daniel
>>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Daniel Mietchen
>>> <daniel.mietchen at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> I am planning to attend a workshop on data governance on Dec 14-15
>>>> that is meant to provide research funders like the Office of
>>>> Cyberinfrastructure (OCI;
>>>> http://www.nsf.gov/dir/index.jsp?org=OCI ) of the NSF with
>>>> recommendations as to how to handle issues around data sharing - how
>>>> to encourage it and how to help ease any problems occurring on the
>>>> way.
>>>> Special attention will be paid to large-scale data sharing, to issues
>>>> of how to license, cite, reuse, combine and annotate data, how to
>>>> ensure permanence, and how to evolve policies in this area.
>>>> Since many of you on these lists are thinking about such issues,
>>>> please share your thoughts, so that we can inject them into that
>>>> discussion. I am collecting my notes at
>>>> http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:OpenScientist/DataONE_Workshop_on_Data_Governance_2011
>>>> , which anyone can edit with their Wikipedia account or under their IP
>>>> (no login required).
>>>> Thanks and cheers,
>>>> Daniel
>>>> --
>>>> http://www.google.com/profiles/daniel.mietchen
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-science mailing list
>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
> -- 
> Co-Founder, Open Knowledge Foundation
> Promoting Open Knowledge in a Digital Age
> http://www.okfn.org/ - http://blog.okfn.org/
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
Scanned by iCritical.

More information about the open-science mailing list