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

Tue Apr 24 01:56:10 UTC 2012

Interesting! I'm wondering... how many journals can your BC users
actually text mine?

Did you ever have a case where someone used text mining and wanted to
publish the results, i.e. the sentences from the text that contained
the information?

thanks
Max

> DATA and TEXT MINING. Members and Authorized Users may conduct research employing data or text mining of the Licensed Materials.
>
> (Members = our libraries, Authorized Users = faculty, students, and staff)
>
> We always ask vendors to sign our model license. Some sign, others don't. For BC ELN, most of our vendors are aggregators - to agree to this clause, they would need to have the rights from all of the publishers they represent. So for us this is primarily an educational tool.
>
> Heather Morrison
> Coordinator, BC Electronic Library Network
> http://www.eln.bc.ca/
>
> On 2012-04-23, at 11:51 AM, Maximilian Haeussler wrote:
>
>> Hi Heather and Peter,
>>
>> the comment function on the blog is still broken, so here is a comment
>> on your post:
>>
>> Having a standard clause for this is definitely one step forward, just
>> today the American Assoc of Immunology was asking for a standard
>> clause to add to their license and I have trouble coming up with
>> something general enough... what shall we ask the library to add to
>> AAI license to allow text mining for everyone ? I will work something
>> out, but any comments are welcome...
>>
>> It is not correct that only Elsevier allows text mining in their (new)
>> license. Some other publishers have been allowing text mining for a
>> while, when the institution that negotiates the license has made that
>> part of the agreement. Sage and Mary-Ann Liebert are examples for
>> these, they allow text mining for the University of California, and
>> maybe many others. Some publishers allow text mining in their general
>> license, like the AACR or the Royal Society of Medicine. The journal
>> of Heredity has not added anything to their license yet but has a
>> contact person now on their website and say that they actively support
>> it.
>>
>> I've listed the licenses of these publishers on my webpage
>> http://text.soe.ucsc.edu/progress.html, in the third column of the
>> table.
>>
>> cheers
>> Max
>>
>> --
>> Maximilian Haeussler, max at soe.ucsc.edu
>> mob +1 831 295 0653 office: +1 831 459 5232
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 1:18 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Heather Piwowar <hpiwowar at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Great suggestions!  (sorry comments on the blog weren't working, not sure
>>>> why, will keep investigating.)
>>>>
>>>> I met with UBC librarians yesterday.  They are excited about codifying
>>>> these expectations into a text-mining addendum that they can use as a model
>>>> agreement with all publishers.  They suggested I spearhead contacting other
>>>> publishers.  I'm going to be busy with that for the next little while.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone else want to pick up the statement and run with pulling
>>>> together these comments, driving to a community "short, tight, non-nonsense
>>>> manifesto"?
>>>>
>>> Yes - I would absolutely like to be involved.
>>>
>>> I have already contacted 6 other publishers and will be publishing the
>>> results very soon.
>>>
>>> I think it's absolutely critical this does not get fragmented and there is a
>>> single statement. The great danger is making it too weak. I'll try to find
>>> time today to put some points on this list.
>>>
>>> We should remember that this must be international as legal jurisdictions
>>> vary.
>>>
>>> P.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Heather
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> open-science mailing list
>>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-science mailing list
>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>