[open-science] Times Higher Education article on opening up research data

Jessy Cowan-Sharp jessy.cowansharp at gmail.com
Mon Jul 19 19:07:35 BST 2010


interesting development. one point this article raises is the question of
how requirements for release might impact longitudinal studies, and in
general makes me wonder, when does something become FoI/FOIA-able? when it's
pencil marks in a notebook? when the file has been saved? when a
statistically significant number of observations have been made?

or put another way, thinking more about sharing that hostile release, when
is a data set complete enough to share? when does a set of observations
become a data set? are there ways to dictate "in progress" or even "stream
data"?

one of the biggest arguments against data sharing in science is that those
who haven't been intimately involved with the project "wouldn't get it".
this seems like a misnomer to me, since lack of availability/exposure to raw
data only exacerbates our lack of literacy with it. but especially with
charged issues like climate change it's easy to see how sharing can
backfire.

so maybe it all comes back to better ways of annotating data.

anyway, bit of a rhetorical rant i guess, but worth thinking about.

jessy


On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Jonathan Gray <jonathan.gray at okfn.org>wrote:

> Interesting...
>
>
> http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=412475&c=2
>
> --
> Jonathan Gray
>
> Community Coordinator
> The Open Knowledge Foundation
> http://blog.okfn.org
>
> http://twitter.com/jwyg
> http://identi.ca/jwyg
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>



-- 
Jessy Cowan-Sharp
http://jessykate.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20100719/64f7ce8b/attachment.htm>


More information about the open-science mailing list