[Simon Hodson]

Collaborative session notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hsRlkU5qo95l64i_vXoESpDsIxqrsoZrhQ4QIeKsuGA/edit?usp=sharing 
 
The meeting will comprise a presentation to the audience detailing the work that has been done by Jisc in formulating, collecting and analysing survey responses. The presentation will start by addressing the problem and why Jisc got involved in looking for a solution from a worldwide audience. There follows a framing of the problem in both a legal and user experience context and mentions work that has been done by University of Glasgow on the legal side and by Jisc designers on the UX side. There are a set of design mock-ups that can be shown as part of the presentation to express this. Next, the methodology of the survey can be addressed before moving onto quantitative and qualitative of the survey results. Tentative conclusions can be offered before turning discussion over to the audience for further feedback. There is an expectation to produce a blog based on this meeting soon after the plenary is finished.

Presentation of the revised charter for Interest Group
Christoph Bruch, Interest Group co-chair, Helmholtz Association (Slides)
Discussion of the revised charter
Can we enhance data discovery by standardising licence classification? (Slides)
Graham Parton, Kate Winfield, Sam Pepler, Centre for Environmental Data Analysis (CEDA), STFC, UK
The UK’s Centre for Environmental Data Analysis hosts an archive of over 200 million files in nearly 6000 datasets. With such large collections a data catalogue can provide many search facets to help identify relevant datasets to aid users to hone down the options to those most relevant to their work. However, after all that work the user may then meet one last hurdle – that the data licence doesn’t permit them to make use of the data! At the same time archive funders may want to ask questions such as ‘how many datasets are available for commercial users?’
To address such use-cases CEDA undertook a review in 2014 of the data licences used in a bid to classify these licences by type of permitted use (e.g commercial, personal, educational, policy). However, the classification scheme was determined by existing cases seen from our licences, as opposed to some standard scheme. At present CEDA’s classifications are purely internal and to date have only been used to aid listing datasets available for commercial use. We would like to expand on this further, but in doing so seek to use a standard classification scheme with the hope that this may be added into metadata exports too. Yet, to date we have been unable to find such a classification scheme to use.
Recent discussions on the Research Data mail list indicates that this is an area of wider interest to the research data management community. A poster at the 14th RDA plenary seeks to be a focal point to gather people’s thoughts, suggestions and questions to aid this discussion and hopefully point a way forward to establishing such a scheme. To compliment the poster this presentation will cover the work undertaken to date by CEDA in producing a ‘permitted use’ data licence classification code list.
This code list has been developed based on experience of reviewing over 100 licences used by CEDA over the years and seeks to address the following use cases:

Provide a search mechanism for stakeholders to find datasets for a given use type
A quick short hand to show users permitted use of dataset on catalogue record views and listings
Aid internal review to find meaningful licences (and avoid re-use of old, unsuitable licences)
Ensure that licences have been check if they are legally sound 5) Aid licence selection for DMP purposes

The presentation seeks wider comments, suggestions and discussion with the hopeful end of a wider adoption of such an approach.

UX challenges with mixed licences and access types in repository based research outputs – international survey results (Slides)
Tom Davey, Jisc; Dom Fripp, JISC
A few months ago, Jisc launched a survey to repository staff around the world to establish how researchers and support staff managed deposits with multiple licences and access types. The plan was to assess whether there was any consensus around best practice, identity pain points and use the results to inform the UX design of the repository component of the Jisc Open Research Hub. 30 teams from around the world replied, giving rich and detailed responses to the problem. This presentation reveals the survey results to the international RDA audience, assesses the emergence of best practice and how it can be incorporated into repository UX design thinking.
Discussion of IG next steps

 
Graham Parton CV
Graham Parton is a senior environmental data scientist at the UK’s Centre for Environmental Data Analysis. Since joining in 2007 Graham has supported the research community wishing to archive, discover and use meteorological, climate change and earth observation data through his direct support to data providers, involvement with the development of CEDAs catalogue service and end-user support for observational data in particular. His broad reaching role and research background means that Graham has an awareness of the full data lifecycle and awareness of the impact on the wider community of well-developed and standardised services and curated archive content.
 
Tom Davey CV
Tom Davey holds an MSc in Informatics, and is Jisc’s User Experience Specialist. He helps teams apply design and UX practice to a range of services and projects across Jisc. Prior to Jisc he worked in a variety of advisory and delivery roles around e-Learning tools and platforms in education, including in universities, schools, and from Apple regional training centres.
 
Dom Fripp CV
Dom Fripp is product manager in the Innovation & Analytics team at Jisc in the UK. He has spent six years working in the area of research data management and has specialised on digital infrastructure to support the collection, storage, preservation, discoverability and sharing of research outputs.

Additional links to informative material
Proposed revised charter discussed at P13 Philadelphia https://rd-alliance.org/sites/default/files/2019-04-01_RDA_IG-Legal-Inte…
Legal Interoperability Of Research Data: Principles And Implementation Guidelines (Uhlir et al, 2016), https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.162241
Blog post about the Jisc repository licence UX survey: https://researchdata.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2019/06/10/mixed-access-and-lice…
Jisc Open Research Hub Mixed access / licence survey: https://ocasta.typeform.com/to/XheFlF
 
REMOTE ACCESS INSTRUCTION
 
Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone. 
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/607378157 
 

You can also dial in using your phone. 
United States: +1 (571) 317-3129 
 

Access Code: 607-378-157 
 

More phone numbers 
 
Australia: +61 2 8355 1050 
Austria: +43 7 2081 5427 
Belgium: +32 28 93 7018 
Canada: +1 (647) 497-9391 
Denmark: +45 32 72 03 82 
Finland: +358 972 52 2974 
France: +33 170 950 594 
Germany: +49 692 5736 7317 
Ireland: +353 15 360 728 
Italy: +39 0 247 92 13 01 
Netherlands: +31 707 709 523 
New Zealand: +64 9 280 6302 
Norway: +47 21 93 37 51 
Spain: +34 932 75 2004 
Sweden: +46 853 527 827 
Switzerland: +41 225 4599 78 
United Kingdom: +44 330 221 0088 
 

New to GoToMeeting? Get the app now and be ready when your first meeting starts: 
https://global.gotomeeting.com/install/607378157 

Avoid conflict with the following group (1)
Repository Platforms for Research Data IG

Brief introduction describing the activities and scope of the group
The Research Data Alliance – CODATA Interest Group on Legal Interoperability of Research Data (RDA-CODATA WG), proposes to renew its charter. Under a renewed charter, we will serve as a platform to consider and resolve extant issues around the implementation of the Group’s Legal Interoperability Of Research Data: Principles And Implementation Guidelines (Uhlir et al, 2016).
To advance the RDA Mission, we believe that the human and technical bridges necessary to improve data sharing cannot be built without a better understanding and implementation of legal interoperability practices. We will formally document post-2016 case studies where interested stakeholders have surfaced implementation barriers in their communities of practice. We will explore possible solutions to accommodate stakeholders needs. Where appropriate, and spin off one or more Working Groups to address the barriers to implementation and recommend promising solutions.
These Principles and Guidelines explain how open research data should be made available to everyone in order to achieve legal interoperability in the ideal case. The Interest Group’s recommendation to release data with the most open, legally-sound mechanisms available (Uhlir et al, 2016, ‘Principle 1’ and ‘Guideline 1c’, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.162241 ) derive from extensive engagement with stakeholder groups; analysis and discussion of foundational case studies; and extensive consideration of “open data without barriers” in the legal, policy, and research literatures. Yet since its release in Fall 2016, the Principles and Guidelines have elicited feedback and queries from stakeholders who feel the IG’s recommendations do not accommodate their needs.
The group has identified four areas of future activity:

Control of downstream use (variant degrees of openness)
Need for a licensing scheme that can apply to multipart, heterogeneous objects packaged within a given data release or submission information package (SIP).
Develop standardized human and machine-readable rights statements as part of standard metadata.
Monitor, evaluate, and recommend technical means to communicate information concerning permissions/limitation concerning reuse in a machine actionable manner. What rights information do machines need to help humans determine legal fitness for use?

Group chair serving as contact person
Simon Hodson

Meeting objectives
The RDA/CODATA Legal Interoperability Interest Group proposes to run a specific working session to explore issues relating to licence use in data repositories from a user experience perspective.  A significant issue has emerged around the user experience of licenses in relation to repository workflow.  The issue – and discussion around it – is being driven by the move towards bringing together files in order to create a research package. These packages might be publications, data and code, all of which may have different licences.  The legal implications of what someone can then do with the research package is a significant challenge and was a focus of discussion in the Legal interoperability Interest Group meeting at the 13th Research Data Alliance plenary in Philadelphia. 
To complicate matters further, files might have varying access types (for example, is it open or restricted?) This can make for a dense and complex user experience. A downloader or even a submitter might get confused about what to do.  There is also an important UX perspective relating to repository product development, where are a variety of ways the problem could be addressed, depending on with whom the burden of interpretation sits. Possible support options inluce the application of validation rules and on screen messaging. 
This is an international problem that requires the international perspective to make something work.  A group at the university of Glasgow has been running a series of workshops to explore the issue and the Jisc Open Research Hub has produced a survey to gather as much information about the issue of possible.
The objective of the RDA Plenary Session is to look at survey responses from the community to better understand intelligibility and behaviour repository deposits with more than one licence or access type. The results to the Jisc survey questions will be analysed and presented to participants so everyone can better understand how the problem is being dealt with currently and how it might be improved through better UX.  The session objectives also include to stimulate debate and capture feedback from the international RDA audience about the results, validity and direction of this work.
 

Privacy Policy
1

Discussion