[Seavox] Fwd: RE: Data Access Policy Vocabulary

Fri Nov 17 16:23:42 GMT 2006

The problem Julie may be seeing with "the list" may be a bounce-back from a recipient of the list.  I saw her original email without a problem.

I concur that data sets (or even versions of one data set) may be created with multiple processes, and that every individual data set (or version) so created deserves its own label.  It is not the case in my experience that access to a synthesis (however produced) is implicitly unrestricted; this is project- and dataset-dependent.  (Or did I misunderstand the point?)

In addition to Roy's response, I note that data that is never described to any collecting organization essentially does not exist for the purpose of the project (at least, from the perspective of the data management system).  If a (description of a) synthesis of that data is submitted, then the fact the data is a synthesis is really not relevant to the licensing or access restrictions.  (It is highly relevant to other aspects of the metadata.)

In general, my assumption is that any agreement not explicitly implemented in the data system must therefore be negotiated, and it is beyond the scope of your work to specify anything about the nature of that negotiation. (What the cost is, where to pay, who to credit, etc.) 

I agree cost is just a type of license, but it is of great interest to many potential users.  Thus for your application I would not take it out of this vocabulary unless you put it into another vocabulary. 

If the matter of interest is how much it will cost (and it generally is), then I'd leave your 'cost of distribution' term in the list, and either add 'cost of collection and distribution', or change the 'commercial' to be 'costs greater than the cost of distribution'.  (Since costs of collections can be arbitrarily large, and I'd be surprised if this category were used in more than 0.1% of the cases.)

john

At 11:28 AM +0000 11/17/06, Roy Lowry wrote:
>Dear All,
>
>Another response from Julie below (Julie try the list again - I could see no problem)  is defending the idea of extra terms for 'at cost of collection' and for 'data available as part of a synthesis'.  Whilst I can maybe live with the extra cost type, I am uncomfortable with adding the synthesis term for two reasons:
>
>I see even 'on the fly' syntheses as a separate dataset to their base data.
>I see this as a specific licence condition (I would lable the base data licence, not restricted) and fear that it will open the door to a whole raft of detailed condition terms, whereas broad indicators are the objective.  I'm even starting to feel that maybe charges are a type of licence and shouldn't be separated out.
>
>Anybody else got any thoughts?
>
>Cheers, Roy.
>
>>>> "Julie Gillin" <julie at ices.dk> 11/16/2006 8:36 am >>>
>Hi Roy !
>Thanks for fixing my enlistment. Please forward this.
>
>While I appreciate your comments to (1), the problem remains that data
>always is seen only as "Restricted" since syntheses are often produced
>on the fly and thus their unrestricted access is implicit.
>
>Regarding (2): the supply-side cost model is actually suspected of being
>a tactic to inflate data prices to an unattainable level. Thus, I would
>like to see two separate types of cost models.
>
>Kr
>Julie
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: seavox-bounces at biwebs1.nerc-liv.ac.uk
>[mailto:seavox-bounces at biwebs1.nerc-liv.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Roy Lowry
>Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 9:23 AM
>To: seavox at biwebs1-2.nerc-liv.ac.uk
>Subject: [Seavox] Fwd: RE: Data Access Policy Vocabulary
>
>Hi Julie,
>
>Something strange happened to your message - I got it through the
>mailman 'bounce' mechanism so I include it below for the rest of the
>list members to see.  I'll also check out your membership details.
>
>In answer to (1) I would argue that we are producing labels for datasets
>and that the base data constitutes a separate dataset from the synthesis
>carrying separate discovery metadata.  Thus the raw data could be
>labelled 'restricted' and the synthesis 'unrestricted'.
>
>In answer to (2) I would propose making  the definition of 'at cost'
>broader.  What I'm trying to descriminiate between is the affordable and
>the extortionate!
>
>Cheers, Roy.
>
>>>> "Julie Gillin" <julie at ices.dk> 11/16/2006 8:10 am >>>
>Dear Roy et al,
>
>The list is a good start - I also agree with John's comments below.
>
>However, I foresee at least two situations not covered:
>1) Data released only in aggregated or anonymized or otherwise processed
>form (to protect sources, economic interests, etc.)
>2) Data delivered at cost to deliver + cost to collect (this model has
>in fact been suggested in some discussions on the Data Collection
>Regulation). This is thus supply-side-set, and thus not the same as
>"charged at commercial rate" which is presumeably demand-side driven.
>
>Sincerely,
>Julie
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: seavox-bounces at biwebs1.nerc-liv.ac.uk
>[mailto:seavox-bounces at biwebs1.nerc-liv.ac.uk] On Behalf Of John
>Graybeal
>Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 5:43 PM
>To: Roy Lowry
>Cc: seavox at biwebs1-2.nerc-liv.ac.uk
>Subject: Re: [Seavox] Data Access Policy Vocabulary
>
>Roy,
>
>Nice list, I will have to figure out how MMI can keep up with all the
>vocabularies you're creating!
>
>Some minor notes are below.  (I appreciate I'm not central to your
>project, please feel free to ignore or otherwise adjust these inputs to
>meet your goals.)
>
>1) Another reason for a moratorium is pending validation (QC) of the
>data. Perhaps this should be explicitly added to this item, or maybe it
>results in a different category.
>
>2) The phrase "However a correct value probably exists" raises the
>question, what if it doesn't?  Do you want an additional category "not
>defined" (the policy has not yet been set)?  Or maybe the phrase is not
>needed.
>
>3) Splitting hairs even further, if my data is freely available to
>anyone but I would like acknowledgment, which of the categories
>'unrestricted' and 'academic' is correct?  (I think you're combining "to
>whom data is made available" and "is acknowledgement required", so this
>is an ambiguous case.)
>
>I note that this list conflates two concepts, cost and availability.
>Ideally they would be separated.  As a practical matter it may not be
>important in your context.
>
>John
>
>At 3:37 PM +0000 11/15/06, Roy Lowry wrote:
>>Dear All,
>>
>>Attached is a vocabulary designed to fulfil the function of the
>ISO19115 MD_RestrictionCode vocabulary for our more academic world. The
>vocabulary has been built from two sources, the SEA-SEARCH CDI (a simple
>subset of MD_RestrictionCode) and the EDIOS metadatabase, which has a
>much bigger vocabulary that I've tried to distil down (see the EDIOS
>sheet in the XLS file for the gory details, including the kind of  terms
>you get in vocabularies built without governance e.g. 'see website').
>>
>>What I'm trying to achieve through this vocabulary is to provide the
>discoverer of a dataset with a reasonably clear picture of the hoops
>that need to be negotiated to get hold of the dataset.  Guess its really
>a classification of data access policies.  Let me have any comments.
>>
>>Cheers, Roy.
>>
>>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:SeaDataNet_Vocab_L081.xls
>>(XLS4/<IC>) (0159338E) _______________________________________________
>>Seavox mailing list
>>Seavox at mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk
>>http://mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/seavox
>
>
>--
>----------
>John Graybeal   <mailto:graybeal at mbari.org>  -- 831-775-1956
>Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
>Marine Metadata Initiative: http://marinemetadata.org   ||  Shore Side
>Data System: http://www.mbari.org/ssds
>
>_______________________________________________
>Seavox mailing list
>Seavox at mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk
>http://mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/seavox
>************************************************************************
>****
>Denne mail er blevet scannet af http://www.virus112.com
>************************************************************************
>****
>
>
>************************************************************************
>****
>Denne mail er blevet scannet af http://www.virus112.com
>************************************************************************
>****
>
>_______________________________________________
>Seavox mailing list
>Seavox at mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk
>http://mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/seavox

-- 
----------
John Graybeal   <mailto:graybeal at mbari.org>  -- 831-775-1956
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
Marine Metadata Initiative: http://marinemetadata.org   ||  Shore Side Data System: http://www.mbari.org/ssds