I've had a (quick) look at the VOID vocabulary in use for linked data
sets http://vocab.deri.ie/void/guide but I could not spot anything that
fits the request. The closest is the recommendation for announcing the
license of a dataset. For automatic analysis it is recommended to use
"canonical identifiers for well-known licenses" examples given include
creative commons licenses and GNU. Perhaps something similar is needed
for sharing availability?
Regards,
Monica
O'Meara, Erin wrote:
> The concept of access control has been one we've been wrestling with
> inour IR, the Carolina Digital Repository (http://cdr.lib.unc.edu/). The
> more we think about the types of access levels and layers that we might
> need, the more daunting it has become.
>
> We need to define some specific metadata elements that can alert/trigger
> the system (or our programmers) for the need for access control. We have
> yet to specifically define those - first we need to decide on categories
> (like yours below).
>
> We keep our metadata open for discovery, even in closed collections. I
> could see a time where we will definitely need to hide some metadata
> elements, too. But we would like users to know material is there, even
> if it is password protected.
>
> The Fedora XACML Policy Writing Guide might be of
> use, https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/FCR30/Fedora+XACML+Policy+Writing+Guide
>
> Erin
>
> Erin O'Meara
> Electronic Records Archivist
> University Archives and Records Management Services
> Wilson Library, CB #3926
> University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
> Chapel Hill, NC 27514-8890
> 919.962.6402
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> http://www.lib.unc.edu/mss/uars/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Research Data Management discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Rusbridge
> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 5:17 AM
> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: On expressing access constraints in a data repository of mixed
> openness
>
> [Apologies for cross-posting.]
>
> I'm looking for some more help. I'm hoping that at the very least the
> discipline of writing down my concern will help me understand it better,
> and at best you guys might have a solution.
>
> Let's imagine an institutional data repository (which I guess could be a
> set of different repositories). By definition, the IDR will have data
> that have different degrees of openness. I can distinguish at least
> these conditions:
>
> a) fully open
> b) closed until some condition is met (then to be open)
> c) closed unless some condition is met
> d) closed indefinitely.
>
> I'm not really sure an IDR would actually want to accept data with
> condition (d), but there may be good reasons that escape me at the
> moment. But however much one would like all data to be open, there are
> substantial swags of data that must be temporarily or partially closed.
>
> Independently of conditions (b) to (d), it is possible that some or all
> of the metadata might be open, that is to say the data might be
> discoverable even if not open (presumably if you found and wanted to use
> the data, then some sort of negotiation would have to take place).
>
> My question is: how could constraints like these sensibly be expressed,
> in either a human-readable or (better) machine-readable way?
>
> --
> Chris Rusbridge
> Mobile: +44 791 7423828
> Email: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>
|