[open-science] LODD on CKAN (was Minutes from WG Meeting Feb 16 2011)

[Rufus Pollock]

On 24 February 2011 07:49, Egon Willighagen <egon.willighagen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Jenny Molloy <jcmcoppice12 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've posted this to the CKAN discuss list as well because they may be better
>> placed to address the points raised by Egon here:
>> http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/2011/02/ckan-and-rdf-nice-example-on-why.html
>
> I have started an etherpad with details, where people can add their names:
>
> http://okfnpad.org/sciencewg-loddhack-201103
>
> But...
>
> I do like to focus on the Open Data side of the LODD data sets, and
> use CKAN for annotation. I do not want the hour to be spend on finding
> out how CKAN works; we'll have to do that on beforehand (and I already
> started a group for this, linked in Jenny's email), and possibly
> afterwards and use if they way we can.

We've started a simple '2 minute' user guide for CKAN:

<http://wiki.ckan.net/Using_the_Web_Interface>

Please add/amend it as necessary.

> Instead... in this hour I like to focus really on getting the 'Open
> Data' nature of the LODD data sets clear. In particular, there are two
> or three data for which we need to write an 'Is It Open Data?' letter
> because they have no clear license/waiver/copyright information... and
> we write letters for a few data sets which have a non-commercial
> clause, making the data non-open, according to the Panton Principles
> and CKAN too, I think.

Strictly CKAN.net has no restriction on the license of the data that
can re registered there though obviously we strongly encourage open
data (as per the open data buttons and the links to
isitopendata.org/).

> That should have priority in this hour, IMHO, so that all participants
> can sign. I do not want this hour to be a general information session
> on Open Data licensing. That too, must be resolved before or
> afterwards.

Big +1.

> Does that make sense?

This makes a lot of sense :)

Rufus