JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for JISCMRD Archives


JISCMRD Archives

JISCMRD Archives


JISCMRD@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

JISCMRD Home

JISCMRD Home

JISCMRD  May 2013

JISCMRD May 2013

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Controlled access to data in EPrints

From:

Robin Rice <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Tue, 21 May 2013 12:20:20 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (210 lines)

Chris,

I agree this needs further discussion (including with the data depositors,
even if only to bring them up to the state of the art). Further discussion
that I haven't totally caught up with is happening right now on the new
data-publication jiscmail list in fact, with the thread "Registration for
access to data".

You asked, "Is there a good name for this class of data that is accessible
without fee after agreement?"

UKDA has called it managed access, which seems about right if there is a
decision taken based on the content of the application, but if registrations
are just automatically done (name & email) and kept then maybe not.
Registered access? The thread we started with here called it controlled
access, which may be about right. Bill below calls it restricted access. I
guess there is no consensus.

Cheers,

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robin Rice
Data Librarian
EDINA and Data Library
University of Edinburgh

[log in to unmask]
@sparrowbarley (twitter)
http://www.ed.ac.uk/is/data-library
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.


-----Original Message-----
From: JISC Managing Research Data Programme [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Chris Rusbridge
Sent: 18 May 2013 10:36
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Controlled access to data in EPrints

I think Cameron is right: the CC licences with NC and SA clauses are not
Open (in the BOAI sense), and data which is freely accessible after a
registration is also not Open in that sense. CC0 is the better choice if you
want to be strictly Open.

We should also all be clear though: there are MANY cases where research data
should NOT be Open in that sense, and MANY cases where some form of
registration and agreement of terms is entirely appropriate. There has been
too little discussion about this important issue. I don't think the old UKDA
argument about registration being important in order to know who's accessing
the data and ensuring credit is sufficient in itself, but where there is
confidential, private and/or sensitive data involved, or "anonymised" data
that could be disclosive if combined with other data, then registration and
agreement to terms is the very least that should apply.

Is there a good name for this class of data that is accessible without fee
after agreement?

--
Chris Rusbridge
Mobile: +44 791 7423828
Email: [log in to unmask]
Adopt the email charter! http://emailcharter.org/




On 16 May 2013, at 14:19, Cameron Neylon wrote:

> Dear All
> 
> It might be worth going back to some of the history of the term "open" in
this context. It derives from usage in the free and open source software
movement as well as the free culture movement and has been adopted into the
data context.
> 
> When Open Access was defined in the BOAI it was defined essentially as
"...freely available on the internet...for use for any purpose...with no
limitations save those intrinsic to gaining access to the internet itself"
[paraphrased].
> 
> So I would argue that putting login requirements does mean something 
> is not "open" in the sense that it is intended by those who coined and 
> promoted the terms Open Source, Open Data, or Open Access. That 
> doesn't mean its necessarily the wrong thing to do, just that it is no 
> longer really open, but "accessible" or "usable". (I happen to 
> personally believe it *is* (usually) the wrong thing to do but that's 
> a separate argument - and there are clear cases where access controls 
> are necessary but in my view these are edge cases.)
> 
> The licensing argument is more complex. The reason CC0 was developed was
because of a significant quantity of work that identified real risks of
using copyright licenses for data. Creative Commons have sought to ensure
that those using CC licenses for data don't get a nasty surprise in terms of
what they cover in v 3.0 and the coming v 4.0 but there are real limitations
in relying on those licenses to limit data usage and the unexpected side
effects can be disastrous. I spent too long working through use cases for
trying to combine incompatible licenses for data and other scholarly objects
but the long and short of it is that it is very easy to create a series of
objects which cannot be recombined and that this risk is at its very worst
for data - which will frequently carry other obligations.
> 
> Consider the following example. A community health professional obtains
mapping data which is CC BY-SA and wants to use this to create a map for
their patient group to show each other where they live so they can stay in
contact. However it would be inappropriate, and quite possibly illegal, for
the CHP to give the patients the right to redistribute each others address
information. But by creating a derivative data work which triggers the SA
requirement the advocate is *required* to provide it under a CC BY-SA
license, explicitly allowing redistribution. The problem is one of
interoperability and splitting the commons. By using more restrictive terms
you're basically re-enacting the enclosure act - and you lose the value of
being able to recombine the whole set of resources available and
interoperable.
> 
> It's these incompatibilities that lead those of us working in this space
to recommend CC0 as the licensing/waiver mechanism for data complemented by
the building up of our existing cultural norms around citation and
attribution to support good social behaviour. Its particularly crucial for
metadata which by its nature is most suited to re-aggregation, indexing, and
repurposing which is why DPLA and Europeana are both adopting that as a
standard - alongside other organisations from Merck to CrossRef releasing
data under CC0.
> 
> Hope this is helpful - for more information I'd recommend some of the
older Science Commons information on data sharing and licensing. That's
where these issues were worked through in most detail from around 2005-2009.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Cameron
> 
> 
> On 16 May 2013, at 12:26, Dr Bill Worthington
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> this is a useful thread. I have the following reflections on it. 
>> 
>> - i agree with Louise, in that I believe you can still say data is 
>> open, even if it isn't available for immediate click-thru
>> 
>> - at UH we are planning to use the same back end archival storage as 
>> Leeds/Southampton, but with dSpace, rather than ePrints
>> 
>> - the nature of this technology means that we have no choice but to 
>> deploy a request-retrieve-deliver journey for the dataset, 
>> corresponding to request-wait-pickup for the requester
>> 
>> - this is not a bad thing, it allows us to: have much better evidence 
>> of actual use than simple click stats, with onward benefit to inform 
>> a retention/disposal schedule; and, insert workflow triggers to deal 
>> with any of Rachel's four scenarios, resulting in a 
>> request-decide-retrieve(or decline)-deliver data journey
>> 
>> - Robin's post brings up the biggest challenge as far as I can see:
requests that require a yes/no decision from their depositor. Datasets are
likely to outlive their owners (at UH we use the term Data Steward because
UH usually owns the data) so who makes the decision when the researcher
moves on? We have a proposed workflow for depositors which includes
'criteria for restricted access', which could then be acted on by an
administrator in the absence of the owner/PI/data steward, but I am quite
skeptical about how practical this will be.
>> 
>> - finally, to go back to Louise's comment about CC0, we will probably use
CC-BY-NC-SA. I would rather use CC-BY-NC because SA creates a license
cascade which I think is impractical. Someone pointed out that the NC clause
is against the open data concept too. Any thoughts on this? (maybe in
another thread).
>> 
>> best wishes,  Bill
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Research Data Management Projects Manager (JISC Managing Research 
>> Data Programme) Projects website: 
>> http://www.herts.ac.uk/research-data-toolkit
>> 
>> Project tags:  #rdtk_herts, #rdmtpa_herts
>> 
>> Dr. W J Worthington
>> 
>> University of Hertfordshire
>> PO Box 109, College Lane
>> Hatfield
>> Hertfordshire
>> AL10 9AB
>> T: +44 (0)1707 284000  ext. 77883
>> E: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> Twitter, Skype:  wjworthington
>> 
>> #####################################################################
>> ### To unsubscribe from the JISCMRD list go to 
>> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=JISCMRD
> 
> ######################################################################
> ## To unsubscribe from the JISCMRD list go to 
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=JISCMRD

########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the JISCMRD list go to
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=JISCMRD

########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the JISCMRD list go to
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=JISCMRD

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager