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

Fri Apr 20 16:52:10 UTC 2012

Heather this is great,
I tried to respond to your blog but could. so please publish this as if I
had.

"This is a great idea, Heather. It is important to state what we want and
what we believe we have a right to, not just what we can 'negotiate' or do
without being sued. There are fundamental rights and we should aim for them.

A finished manifesto will require some communal work. Firstly it must cover
multiple jurisdictions (e.g. "fair use" is irrelevant in UK law, and in any
case Larry Lessig simple describes it as a right to go to court (or
similar).

It's extremely important that we don't get so excited that we give away
stuff that actually is ours. For example I will argue that *all* factual
data is de facto mineable and is only prevented by publisher contracts. We
should also address the problem (if any) of server overload - it is easily
manageable by caches. I am particularly concerned about other-than-text -
much of my current work is on diagrams.

So a short, tight, non-nonsense manifesto is exactly what is required. Like
Panton Principles and the Principles pf Open Bibliography.

And we have a number of people in OKF who are very interested.
"

So as you say this is the time - we should aim to get something out as
quickly as we can without losing the fundamental principles. That's not
easy, but it's possible

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Nick Barnes <nb at climatecode.org> wrote:

> 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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>

-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20120420/fdc8636b/attachment-0001.html>