[open-science] “We are entering an era of open science” says EU Vice President Neelie Kroes at launch of new global Research Data Alliance

Fri Mar 22 22:31:00 UTC 2013

I haven't been attending these meetings myself, but I'll cc Bill Michener
Rebecca Koskela who have been representing our DataONE project at RDA and
see how they think it might be best to proceed.  Looking at the proposed
charter for the RDA legal working group, I do see that Bill is a proposed
member from DataONE, and that there is a slot for an as yet unnamed OKFN
representative.  To view the proposed WG charter, see the attachment here:
http://forum.rd-alliance.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=32#p199.  Seems to me like
this legal group is in a good position to address the open data issues you
are interested in, and that maybe extending the proposed WG charter is
still feasible -- it is still being actively discussed, as evidenced by
Mark Parsons commentary on it as of February 28th.

Matt

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Jonathan Gray <jonathan.gray at okfn.org>wrote:

> Exactly Matt. There are indeed legitimate exceptions (like privacy). But
> it would be wonderful to see a stronger, more explicit 'open by default'
> approach from the RDA (as per the Panton Principles. Would you or others be
> in a position to propose this - either as a new WG, or as an additional
> focus area for an existing one?
>
>
> On 22 March 2013 12:12, Matt Jones <jones at nceas.ucsb.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jonathan --
>>
>> Those are great points, and I agree that an open data working group would
>> be a fantastic addition to RDA, for exactly the reasons that you raise.  Of
>> course, as was evident on this list a few weeks ago, there are some
>> legitimate reasons why some research data are not open, such as human
>> subjects data with the privacy of personal information is at stake (e.g.,
>> medical records).  I think it would be great if the RDA were strongly
>> supporting open data while clarifying which types of data might qualify for
>> exceptions -- global agreement on these classifications would allow major
>> gains by clarifying that we expect the vast majority of data to be open
>> data.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Jonathan Gray <jonathan.gray at okfn.org>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Matt,
>>>
>>> This is great to know. While the emphasis on open data may be implicit
>>> and evident to partners, it is not so evident on the current website! So
>>> happy to hear that there is broad support. :-)
>>>
>>> To be a bit more specific, it is not clear that the 'sharing' and
>>> 'reuse' that are described on the RDA website extend to the public, as
>>> opposed to sharing between institutions or researchers. Also it is not
>>> clear that there is a principled commitment to openness (as in the
>>> OpenDefinition.org) and removing restrictions on reuse (as per the Panton
>>> Principles), as opposed to - for example - the more typical terms and
>>> conditions for research data distribution services which often permit
>>> private use, but which may limit redistribution and further downstream
>>> sharing.
>>>
>>> Typically the reuse rights for aggregators are only as permissive as
>>> upstream providers (researchers, institutions, etc) allow, so while there
>>> may be a commitment to open data from the RDA, this would have to be
>>> accompanied by serious commitments from funders, research bodies, national
>>> agencies, etc. Given that the rights clearance, evangelism, standards
>>> building and best practises work involved in explicitly opening up the
>>> world's research data is a non-trivial, I'd expect open data to be a core
>>> focus of at least one of the working groups. Perhaps it already is?
>>>
>>> In any case - great to hear that there is core support for open data,
>>> and I look forward to hearing more about RDA plans on this front.
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22 March 2013 11:13, Matt Jones <jones at nceas.ucsb.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jonathan --
>>>>
>>>> At DataONE, we've been involved in the talks leading to the formation
>>>> of the Research Data Alliance, as have many of the other DataNet partners
>>>> in the US.  DataONE and these other partners all have a commitment to open
>>>> data, and I fully expect that it would be a major emphasis of RDA. I think
>>>> it is implicit in almost all of the activities I have seen to date.
>>>>  Certainly most of the the working group activities have moved beyond
>>>> simply stating that data should be open, and instead focus on how one gets
>>>> there via metadata interoperability, long-term preservation, etc. (see
>>>> http://rd-alliance.org/working-groups/current-candidate-groups/). Are
>>>> you thinking there is some explicit risk that RDA will try to be non-open,
>>>> or are you just trying to raise the profile of open data within the RDA
>>>> activities? Thanks for the clarification...
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Jonathan Gray <jonathan.gray at okfn.org>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> FYI
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://blog.okfn.org/2013/03/21/we-are-entering-an-era-of-open-science-says-eu-vp-neelie-kroes/
>>>>>
>>>>> Is anyone in touch with or involved with the Research Data Alliance?
>>>>> It would be wonderful if there could be an open data working group, and a
>>>>> stronger focus on open data (and the Panton Principles) more generally!
>>>>>
>>>>> http://rd-alliance.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jonathan Gray <http://jonathangray.org/> | @jwyg<http://twitter.com/jwyg>
>>>>> Director of Policy and Ideas
>>>>> The Open Knowledge Foundation <http://okfn.org/> | @okfn<http://twitter.com/okfn>
>>>>> Support our work: okfn.org/support
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> open-science mailing list
>>>>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>>>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jonathan Gray <http://jonathangray.org/> | @jwyg<http://twitter.com/jwyg>
>>> Director of Policy and Ideas
>>> The Open Knowledge Foundation <http://okfn.org/> | @okfn<http://twitter.com/okfn>
>>> Support our work: okfn.org/support
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Jonathan Gray <http://jonathangray.org/> | @jwyg <http://twitter.com/jwyg>
> Director of Policy and Ideas
> The Open Knowledge Foundation <http://okfn.org/> | @okfn<http://twitter.com/okfn>
> Support our work: okfn.org/support
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20130322/17164cad/attachment-0001.html>