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

[N.L.Scantlebury]

Hi all
Having a statement of principles which extends to text mining initiatives would be an extremely useful first step- however I would caution that if people don't know what they can or cannot mine at a practical/application level means they may end up being the 'emperor's new clothes'
We need "teeth" with these principles so need to address the licensing arrangements that allow for the implementation of the principles. To me they go hand in hand.

Non Scantlebury
Open University Library Services

-----Original Message-----
From: Diane Cabell [mailto:dc at icommons.org] 
Sent: 26 April 2012 16:36
To: open-science list
Cc: Heather Morrison
Subject: Re: [open-science] feedback wanted on text-mining initiatives

Do we have a wiki for this?
dc

On Apr 24, 2012, at 8:36 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:

> This is clearly a matter of great and immediate importance. A few of us met yesterday at Oxford and discussed Heather's excellent blog posts. The immediate outcome is that JennyM, DianeC and I will try to pull material together.
> 
> My memory is that about 18 months ago we started to pull together something under "Panton papers" and there may be some early drafts on OKF wikis.
> 
> It will not be easy to get a rapid and authoritative paper about text-mining (I prefer to call it information-mining) - there are lots of technical details and legal concerns. This is why it took 2 years to hack out the details of the Panton Principles. Therefore I think we should aim for a background (non-normative) summary of the current position and a set of general principles which deliberately (at this stage) leave details to be filled in.
> 
> Ideally we would like to come up with principles to which all parties (authors, publishers, libraries) could put their names. We shall probably be asking for more than some publishers currently allow in their contractual restrictions - we would ask them to realise the many benefits they will get from allowing mining.
> 
> Among the things which we probably should not address are:
> * what can and cannot be mined and reproduced
> * to what spread of activities (e.g. science) this belongs
> * mechanisms for making it happen (including better technical provisions)
> 
> It is particularly important that we do not give away rights that we already believe we have or which we can reasonably aspire to. This is not a negotiation, it's a statement of principles. 
> 
> We'll be doing this on this list and OKF wiki pages.
> 
> P.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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

-- 
The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).