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

Fri Apr 27 07:00:49 UTC 2012

We do now  http://wiki.okfn.org/Working_Groups/Science/TextMiningPrinciples
(currently
empty)

If people prefer to edit on a pad and then copy across to the wiki when
plans are more concrete, we have one of those too
http://okfnpad.org/sciencewg-textmining and I've copied across some
relevant content from this email thread.

I think a Skype/Etherpad chat with those interested in contributing would
be a great help at this stage.
Heather, you'd be key so could you let me know off-list a few times that
would be good for you and I'll set up a Doodlepoll.

Thanks very much, and let's keep the momentum going on this!

Jenny

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Diane Cabell <dc at icommons.org> wrote:

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20120427/2558234d/attachment-0001.html>