[open-science] Launch of the Panton Principles for Open Data in Science + Is It Open Data?
cameron.neylon at stfc.ac.uk
Sat Feb 20 15:22:22 GMT 2010
I would add slightly to this. The point of the PP was for it to apply after
the decision to publish the data has been made. We completely sidestep the
issue of when it should be published. As Peter says, privacy is an issue
with the decision to publish, not any decision about how that data is made
available. Note that the PP makes no comment at all as to when, or even if,
data should be published.
The issue of the definition of data is a fair one, but it is essentially
impossible to define in a way that will capture all the different
definitions that people want. We can count angels till the cows come home,
or we could rely on legal definitions (which would be inconsistent). I¹m
pretty happy with ³I know it when I see it². This is not supposed to be a
legal code, this is supposed to be statement of principle.
On 20/02/2010 12:15, "Peter Murray-Rust" <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> This is an extremely valid point. My understanding is that it best covered by
> "community norms". At present I see the situation as:
> * any data which is "Open Data" is necessarily publicly visible so there is no
> additional release of information.
> * it is therefore important for an author to unedrstand the community norms
> relating to the release of this information
> * data in public view are tecnically crawable and analysable by bots. It is
> true that some bot-owners may be dissauaded by the current lack of clarity on
> rights and hold back from indexing this. However it is likley that this is
> already repeatedly crawled by large search engines (some of which currently
> crawl private information as well).
> So I don't see that Open Data per se gives any less privacy. Of course if a
> community or author applies Open Data to material that is normally regarded as
> private this is a problem. But that breach of privacy is not really dependent
> on Open Data - but a poorly thought out publication policy.
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Daniel Mietchen
> <daniel.mietchen at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> After posting on the principles in some mailing lists, I got replies
>> from the social sciences/ humanities/ medical corner in which concerns
>> were raised about the lack of definition of "data" in the principles,
>> and about a possible lack of applicability to their fields,
>> essentially because of privacy concerns for subjects/ patients.
>> Perhaps you can address these points when you talk about the subject?
>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> > I've now met Lisa - we've had lunch with Lee (also copied). The good news
>>> > that there will probably be 2 recordings of this - one routed through MS
>>> > UWash and the other an independent video stream by an enthusiast (whose
>>> > I'll post when I have it). I think this is a seminal meeting from which
>>> > SC and OKF take considerable credit and I'm hoping we can get it widely
>>> > reported ... I bounced this off Lisa at lunch. Anyone with friendly
>>> > journalists is welcome to let them know.
>>> > Cameron and I will divvy up the Panton material - I will also show
>>> > but don't have time to make any requests during the talk. However I had
>>> > earlier tried it out on a friendly publisher and got a positive reply.
>>> > There'll be a good physical attendence. I haven't asked but I assume it
>>> > be tweeted
>>> > 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
Scanned by iCritical.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the open-science