[open-science] feedback wanted on text-mining initiatives

[Nick Barnes]

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 16:15, Heather Piwowar <hpiwowar at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Open Science,
>
> There is growing interest in text-mining rights.  I'm in the middle of a bit
> of it, and would love some feedback and community.
>
> Briefly, due to a twitter conversation, Elsevier and I began to talk about
> updating the subscription contract of the University of British Columbia to
> explicitly include text-mining rights.  The rights Elsevier has agreed to
> are more broad than they've agreed to with other institutions, as far as I
> know (tell me if I'm wrong!), and more broad than those of most publishers.
>  More information.
>
> In the mean time, PMR and others are asserting text-mining rights and going
> ahead.  This is another approach and I'm glad they are doing it.
>
> I've drafted a short "text-mining manifesto" if you will...  how researchers
> expect to be able to access and process the accessing the literature to
> which we have access.   How to improve this statement, and what to do with
> it next?

Tried to respond on your blog but for some reason WordPress doesn't
like my login any more.  Anyway, I was commenting to encourage you to
broaden it.  For instance are "aggregate statistical" results the only
kind of fact that text-miners might want to publish?  Also, to
strengthen the wording.  It took me several drafts of the Science Code
Manifesto to get to the bald statements of "must".
-- 
Nick Barnes, Climate Code Foundation, http://climatecode.org/