Talk:EA-CoP Data Access and Sharing Policies
Here follows a summary of major feedback collected during meetings, mail exchanges or live discussions.
Feedback on Annexes
From mail exchange between Ward Appeltans and Anton Ellenbroek [AE] - 29 October 2012
I have some remarks/questions on the Annex 2 draft iMarine "terms of use".
1. Disclaimer: - It will be important to add that iMarine is not liable for the content/quality of the data or for any misuse or misinterpretation of the data.
2. Copyright:
-conflict with paragraph 1 and 2. Are all dataset records licensed under the CC license?
- [AE] No, we should adhere to the providers policy. If that is not possible, the owner should not publish the data and only use them in their private environment, which can be a VREVirtual Research Environment.. We should revise this para.
3. Online community:
-iMarine Channel: "register for video repository, personal web space". Are we doing this?
- [AE] Not sure what you mean here with doing. The project supports similar facilities, however, not through the infrastructure.
-iMarine Gateway: can you confirm, is this only open for members of institutions that have an agreement with iMarine?
- Like a bank safe …. depends on how you use it. Every user has to register for registration to VREVirtual Research Environment.. It is then up to the VREVirtual Research Environment. owner to grant access.
4. VREs:
"Only metadata formats considered as iMarine standards can be fully supported". 3.5 Metadata on page 7 deals with metadata, but doesn't say something about 'our' standards for metadata.
- [AE] This is written with a future situation in mind where we will have selected a set of formats.
Annex 3, iMarine privacy policy
1. VREVirtual Research Environment. security issues -"as long as long" double long. -changes to the policy: you refer to "this page", => add a URL. And who can decide on changes to the Policy?
- [AE] The policy is under the remit of the Board, and that is where changes can be proposed.
From: Alex Hardisty - 11 October 2012 12:22
...I suggest we have to distinguish between the two following:
1) "data-set" = A data product; a collection of data with associated metadata describing its identity, provenance, purpose and relationship with other artefacts within an infrastructure.
2) "raw data" = Unvalidated data drawn directly from an instrument (or other logical data source); generally not annotated or partitioned until processed within an infrastructure.
Raw data can be real-time, nearRT, or legacy.
Data-sets are never real-time or nRT. By definition, data-sets are raw data that has been processed (perhaps in real-time) but which is now held somewhere for subsequent processing. Data-sets can be current or legacy.
Both data-sets and raw data can be observational data, or derived data.
Data access and sharing policies may be different for raw data and data-sets.
From: Los, Wouter - 10/10/2012 17:25
Dear all,
Most important for me was that we should avoid to have separate disciplinary solutions. A generic approach (from the viewpoint of data infrastructures) should look for solutions to accommodate different kinds of entering data. Thus, the categories of real-time, near real-time or historical/legacy (Neil: I like this) are only meant for optimizing services from data infrastructures. The use case of iMarine is interesting as this probably includes all three categories.
Best wishes, Wouter
From: Neil Holdsworth - October 10, 2012 4:19 PM
Dear All,
I have seen a similar debate in other fora about making a categorisation and agree that it is useful to distinguish but problematic to define. In discussions with other data managers, it seems that the only definition that would stand up to scrutiny is to use the level of quality control on a dataset as the measure of whether it falls into real-time, near real-time or historical/legacy. This only works if you have a good handle on the quality control usually through a flagging system.
Neil
From: Uhlir, Paul - 10 October 2012 14:01
Dear Donatella and Wouter,
The iMarine project may well be a very good case study to use in the whole process, so thanks for suggesting that.
I also am supportive of the "legacy, observational and real-time data" categories that Wouter brought up. I have a slight definitional problem, however. I presume that by "legacy" you mean historical/archived (and only digital?). By "observational," you mean you may mean "near-real time"? If not, what is the distinguishing characteristic? In any event, there are definitely different economic values, uses, and licensing considerations for these (and other) data categories that should be explored.
In the GEO summary white paper on data licensing I sent earlier, we only addressed the easy case of the most open category of data, the GEOSS Data-CORE. How more restricted categories of data can be navigated with the greatest amount of openness possible, however, is still not fully clear.
Cheers, Paul
From: Los, Wouter - October 08, 2012 6:01 PM
...My impression is that the process is getting direction and speed, which is good news.
Your suggestion below needs support in my view. The subject is very relevant, especially with attention on trust for data generators and data owners when they have to rely on data infrastructures. In this respect we should avoid only disciplinary approaches, since this will bring us again in compartments rather than generic data infrastructure approaches. It would in my opinion sense to distinguish between legacy data, observational data and real time data, which each deserve attention for appropriate solutions.
Best wishes, Wouter
From: Donatella Castelli - Monday, October 08, 2012 6:05 PM
Dear all,
I think that this effort on data access and sharing policy is very in line with the objectives of the constituent RDA WG that I introduced at the iMarine Board meeting last week. I am cc-ing Enrique Alonso Garcia and Paul Uhlir, the co-chairs of the RDA Legal Interoperability WG proposal (attached the last version of the slides that they presented in Washington).
Paul, Enrique, in the context of the iMarine (http://www.i-marine.eu/) and agINFRA (http://aginfra.eu/ ) EU projects we are experimenting concrete needs for clearly defined data sharing policies. Both projects have activities dedicated to address this issue. We had a very interesting discussion on this point last week at the iMarine Board. Do you think that we could join forces with RDA? Our activity will be done anyway since it is part of the projects contract signed with the EU. How could we start collaborating if it makes sense?
From Nikos Manouselis - 08 October 2012
...we had the agINFRA plenary meeting...
One of the issues that we discussed was related to the way all the aggregated data and metadata sources should be licensed in order to offer them to our users.
During our discussion with the agINFRA Advisory Board (including experts from BioVEL and LifeWatch) we found out that a review of such legal requirements for biodiversity-related infrastructures will take place within the CReATIVE-B project (http://creative-b.eu/) and will cover several global infrastructures such as LifeWatch and GBIF.
We plan to set up a Working Group that will include people from all relevant initiatives, maybe this would be an opportunity to liaise also with IMARINE so that its also represented in this discussion. ...
Licensing frameworks
From: Hervé Caumont - Terradue - 05 October 2012
... following today's review of the MoU topic, here are some pointers wrt Licensing frameworks that we discussed:
Open Database License (ODbL) is published by Open Data Commons / Open Knowledge Foundation. -- The OpenStreetMap (OSM) project completed the move from a Creative Commons license to ODbL in September 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Database_License
Creative Commons Rights Expression Language (CC REL) http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CcREL http://code.creativecommons.org/doc/commoner/metadata.html
