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

Sat Mar 23 11:12:23 UTC 2013

Since I attended the meeting for this group u thought I'd chip in my 2 cent. It's my understanding that the legal interoperability group has been turned in to an interest group because the remit was too broad. Not once was open data mentioned in the group meeting. From my perspective an open  data WG would be an excellent addition     under the umbrella of this interest group.
Depending in the type of deliverable you foresee, the engagement WG might also be a good place to devise ways to encourage disciplines etc to engage with open data principles.

Best,

Susan Reilly

On 22 mrt. 2013, at 23:48, "Matt Jones" <jones at nceas.ucsb.edu> wrote:

> 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 | @jwyg
> Director of Policy and Ideas
> The Open Knowledge Foundation | @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 | @jwyg
> Director of Policy and Ideas
> The Open Knowledge Foundation | @okfn
> Support our work: okfn.org/support
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jonathan Gray | @jwyg
> Director of Policy and Ideas
> The Open Knowledge Foundation | @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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20130323/c816fe23/attachment-0001.html>