[Christoph Bruch]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yZJls_npD4ojsEjwfnp12QUx2spzB7Md…
I’ve added a list of organisations I got from the force11 website.
It’s a mix of different types/stakeholder groups of organisations (see column G)
The great challenge is to add email addresses.
Regards,
Christoph
Christoph Bruch
Helmholtz Association
Helmholtz Open Science Coordination Office
http://os.helmholtz.de
W: +49 (0)331 28 82 87 61
M: +49 (0)151 14 09 39 68

Discussion

[Simon Hodson]

Thanks, Christoph. Yes, I can see that the challenge is getting the e-mail addresses…
S.
___________________________
Call for Working Group and Review Circle Members: Standard Glossary for Research Data Management (IRIDIUM)
Legal Interoperability of Research Data: Principles and Implementation Guidelines
___________________________
Dr Simon Hodson | Executive Director CODATA | http://www.codata.org
E-Mail: ***@***.*** | Twitter: @simonhodson99 | Skype: simonhodson99
Tel (Office): +33 1 45 25 04 96 | Tel (Cell): +33 6 86 30 42 59
CODATA (Committee on Data of the International Council for Science), 5 rue Auguste Vacquerie, 75016 Paris, FRANCE

[Donat Agosti]

Here an article from Nature on legal confusion and data sets, that is at the base of our discussion and guidelines.
http://www.nature.com/news/legal-confusion-threatens-to-slow-data-scienc…
Donat
From: simon=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of Simon Hodson
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2016 3:47 PM
To: bruch ; RDA/CODATA Legal Interoperability IG
Cc: Paul Uhlir

Subject: Re: [rda-legalinterop-ig] [rda-legalinterop-ig] dissemination
Thanks, Christoph. Yes, I can see that the challenge is getting the e-mail addresses…
S.
___________________________
Call for Working Group and Review Circle Members: Standard Glossary for Research Data Management (IRIDIUM)
Legal Interoperability of Research Data: Principles and Implementation Guidelines
___________________________
Dr Simon Hodson | Executive Director CODATA | http://www.codata.org
E-Mail: ***@***.*** | Twitter: @simonhodson99 | Skype: simonhodson99
Tel (Office): +33 1 45 25 04 96 | Tel (Cell): +33 6 86 30 42 59
CODATA (Committee on Data of the International Council for Science), 5 rue Auguste Vacquerie, 75016 Paris, FRANCE
On 4 Nov 2016, at 14:43, bruch wrote:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yZJls_npD4ojsEjwfnp12QUx2spzB7Md…
I’ve added a list of organisations I got from the force11 website.
It’s a mix of different types/stakeholder groups of organisations (see column G)
The great challenge is to add email addresses.
Regards,
Christoph
Christoph Bruch
Helmholtz Association
Helmholtz Open Science Coordination Office
http://os.helmholtz.de
W: +49 (0)331 28 82 87 61
M: +49 (0)151 14 09 39 68
—
Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/rdacodata-legal-interoperability-ig/po…
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/54348

[Jean Bernard Minster]

Thanks, Donat: It seems like a good case study. Perhaps also we can recruit Hiimelstein to the working group. Bernard

[Donat Agosti]

Here are the comments. No further comments possible. I have tweeted this this morning:
Donat Agosti @myrmoteras
3h
Legal confusion threatens to slow data science nature.com/news/legal-con… : a possible solution doi.org/10.5281/zenodo… @NatureNews @resdatall
3 comments
Avatar for George McNamaraGeorge McNamara•2016-08-09 12:34 AM
Daniel has nothing to fear – as long as he and his data stay in the United States. that data cannot be copyrighted but can be legally encumbered in other countries is pretty silly. The author of the story, Simon Oxenham, and editors, could have replaced the photo of Daniel H with a map of the world showing where data are free and clear – U.S. and Canada, vs enclosed in some nebulous black box of databaselegalese – the E.U., and made some effort to uncover how “data are facts, facts cannot be copyrighted”, but might be handcuffed, in other parts of the world. I wrote in 2006, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.libraryproxy.amnh.org:9000/doi/10.1002/cy… During the course of developing this data, one of us had an epiphany while reading in Lessig (18) about a U.S. Supreme Court decision: data is not subject to copyright (14). Text and commentary about Feist can be found on many legal web sites by doing a Google search. Indeed, the broad availability of the text of Supreme Court decisions is because they are not subject to copyright. The Feist decision reaffirmed the U.S. Copyright act of 1976 that “there can be no copyright in facts”. The basis for the Feist decision can be found in the U.S. Constitution. Several hundred of the PubSpectra traces were digitized by un-scanning. Some of this was because digitizing one or a few traces from well organized published figures is easy. Other data was digitized because the corresponding author never responded, was unable to find, or declined a request for data (contrary to grant public sharing requirements for NIH and NSF funded projects, see19). Several companies and researchers have been generous with making spectral data available, while others of the microscopy, flow cytometry, and spectroscopy communities not. This contrasts with the floods of data made available by the genome and microarray communities. Ironically, both of the latter communities have been successful because of the same light sources, optics, fluorescent dyes, and detectors used in fluorescence microscopy. We encourage all researchers to publish numerical spectral data as supplementary data to their online journal article and/or post the data on their own web site. We also encourage editors and reviewers to ask that all data be included as supplemental material at the time of manuscript review. The principle that data is not subject to copyright provides a framework in which all scientific data should be made freely accessible. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co. 1991; 499 U.S. 340. Lessig L. The Future of Ideas. New York: Random House; 2001. p 368. The U.S. Constitution is online at http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html with easier to read transcript at http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html The PubSpectra dataset is a Microsoft Excel file inside a zip file downloadable at https://works.bepress.com/gmcnamara/9 The organization of the spectra is one spectrum per column. One of the rows is the source attribution, either scientific paper or web source. I call on Nature Publishing Group to require all data accompanying a manuscript be included as supplemental file(s) that are free and clear from EU databaselegalase. For data that are too large or unwieldy to host at NPG, then the data should be deposited in a Open Data Access site(s) that are hosted in the U.S., Canada or other location not subject to databaselegalase. I also call on NPG to require that all graph traces and tables published in the main text or supplemental files include the numeric data as well.
Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare link to this comment
Avatar for ahmed kamelahmed kamel•2016-08-06 03:27 PM
Himmelstein raises some important points about the complexities of data sharing, most notably that “these are largely untested waters”. Some will point to open licensing as a solution, however this may not be as simple a solution as one might think. A few examples of issues that need to be addressed before broad-based data licensing policies are adopted: 1. While in the EU there are database protection rights and it may be necessary and/or helpful for data sharers to waive these rights, in other jurisdictions (e.g. Canada, U.S.) this doesn’t make sense. Scassa in 2013 that Canada’s copying of UK language with respect to waiving database rights didn’t make sense here. I would go a step further and ask whether other jurisdictions adopting database rights waiver language could become a precedent for the future establishment of database rights – could someone go to court in Canada or the U.S. in future and say, look, I didn’t waive these rights, and thereby assert them by precedent? (Future comments by people with legal expertise would be helpful, I am not a lawyer). 2. Researchers often work with data that clearly does not belong to them, even without database rights. Consider health scientists who work with data provided by hospitals, social scientists who work with data provided by schools, non-governmental organizations, or businesses. As an example, even in the area I work in, open access, that one might think would be relatively unproblematic, the data that I use is not mine. I use data like the DOAJ downloadable metadata and article processing charges information from publishers’ website. If I use the NPG APC information, does it become mine to license? 3. Attribution raises all kinds of problems. I am happy to see people use my data downstream, but as a new faculty member I need attribution and citations. If someone uses my whole dataset and downstream attributions are to them, not to me, for me this is a major problem. As an example of an issue that I see arising, how much of an original contribution should trigger a shift in primary attribution? If someone does a whole lot of work and uses a few of my datapoints, obviously they should be cited first. On the other hand, if someone uses all my dataset and adds just a little of their own work, that’s a different story. 4. The related question of provenance is even more importance with respect to conducting quality downstream research. By provenance I mean correctly understanding where a particular data point came from, how it was derived. This is just one aspect of the emerging importance of research data management. Another example from my research, even what one might assume is the simple data point of “article processing charge”, different researchers have slightly different ways of defining the data. 5. While mashing up datasets appears on the surface to provide tremendous potential for generating hypotheses, the utility of this approach in hypothesis testing is far from clear. The external validity of results obtained through data mash-up will be limited through such factors as research conducted using even slightly different definitions. This is important, because if this is not understood the internal validity of freely available mash-up datasets (i.e. anyone can obtain the same results) may cause researchers and/or readers to overestimate the external validity of results. In conclusion, I believe that opening up data for downstream research offers a great deal of promise to further our knowledge, and I actively practice open data sharing myself. However, I think at this time a great deal more research and thought is needed on the questions of data ownership (hence licensing), attribution, provenance and validity to maximize the potential benefits and avoid creating new downstream problems and (in the worst case scenario) apparently new knowledge which is actually false. Referenceاخبار اخبار مصر
Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare link to this comment
Avatar for Heather MorrisonHeather Morrison•2016-08-03 08:23 PM
Himmelstein raises some important points about the complexities of data sharing, most notably that “these are largely untested waters”. Some will point to open licensing as a solution, however this may not be as simple a solution as one might think. A few examples of issues that need to be addressed before broad-based data licensing policies are adopted: 1. While in the EU there are database protection rights and it may be necessary and/or helpful for data sharers to waive these rights, in other jurisdictions (e.g. Canada, U.S.) this doesn’t make sense. Scassa in 2013 that Canada’s copying of UK language with respect to waiving database rights didn’t make sense here. I would go a step further and ask whether other jurisdictions adopting database rights waiver language could become a precedent for the future establishment of database rights – could someone go to court in Canada or the U.S. in future and say, look, I didn’t waive these rights, and thereby assert them by precedent? (Future comments by people with legal expertise would be helpful, I am not a lawyer). 2. Researchers often work with data that clearly does not belong to them, even without database rights. Consider health scientists who work with data provided by hospitals, social scientists who work with data provided by schools, non-governmental organizations, or businesses. As an example, even in the area I work in, open access, that one might think would be relatively unproblematic, the data that I use is not mine. I use data like the DOAJ downloadable metadata and article processing charges information from publishers’ website. If I use the NPG APC information, does it become mine to license? 3. Attribution raises all kinds of problems. I am happy to see people use my data downstream, but as a new faculty member I need attribution and citations. If someone uses my whole dataset and downstream attributions are to them, not to me, for me this is a major problem. As an example of an issue that I see arising, how much of an original contribution should trigger a shift in primary attribution? If someone does a whole lot of work and uses a few of my datapoints, obviously they should be cited first. On the other hand, if someone uses all my dataset and adds just a little of their own work, that’s a different story. 4. The related question of provenance is even more importance with respect to conducting quality downstream research. By provenance I mean correctly understanding where a particular data point came from, how it was derived. This is just one aspect of the emerging importance of research data management. Another example from my research, even what one might assume is the simple data point of “article processing charge”, different researchers have slightly different ways of defining the data. 5. While mashing up datasets appears on the surface to provide tremendous potential for generating hypotheses, the utility of this approach in hypothesis testing is far from clear. The external validity of results obtained through data mash-up will be limited through such factors as research conducted using even slightly different definitions. This is important, because if this is not understood the internal validity of freely available mash-up datasets (i.e. anyone can obtain the same results) may cause researchers and/or readers to overestimate the external validity of results. In conclusion, I believe that opening up data for downstream research offers a great deal of promise to further our knowledge, and I actively practice open data sharing myself. However, I think at this time a great deal more research and thought is needed on the questions of data ownership (hence licensing), attribution, provenance and validity to maximize the potential benefits and avoid creating new downstream problems and (in the worst case scenario) apparently new knowledge which is actually false. Reference Scassa, T. (2013). Canada’s draft new open license. http://www.teresascassa.ca/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=113:cana…
—–Original Message—–
From: Bob Chen [mailto:***@***.***]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 2:13 PM
To: jbminster
Cc: Donat Agosti ; RDA/CODATA Legal Interoperability IG ; bruch ; Paul Uhlir

Subject: Re: [rda-legalinterop-ig] [rda-legalinterop-ig] dissemination
Too bad comments are closed…would have been a good place to have mentioned this. Perhaps we should be looking to get a similar article about the guidelines in Nature…
Funny that there’s a duplicate comment from a different user name!
Cheers, Bob
*****
Dr. Robert S. Chen
Director, Center for International Earth Science Information Network
(CIESIN), The Earth Institute, Columbia University Manager, NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC) P.O. Box 1000, 61 Route 9W, Palisades, NY 10964 USA tel. +1 845-365-8952; fax +1 845-365-8922
e-mail: ***@***.***
CIESIN web site: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cies…
SEDAC web site: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsedac.ci…
On Sat, 12 Nov 2016, jbminster wrote:

[Author]

Replies