Draft RDA Outputs Policy

26 Nov 2013

Friends,

It was harder than I anticipated and i raised as many questions as answers, but I finally have a first draft Outputs policy together. See:
 
It is based on our discussion and the initial document from Herman and Peter.
 
It’s a wiki, so please edit the draft at will. Alternatively, you can add comments at the bottom of the document. Remember, everything we do is public.
 
We can discuss next steps on Monday. I’ll put together an agenda after I see some of your feedback, but some key issues include:
  • Does this policy apply to all RDA outputs or just those from WGs or WGS and IGs? I took the broader approach
  • Did I get the classifications right?
  • Can IGs produce formal endorsed Recs on Data or just WGs?
  • Are we ready to seek broader input or get legal experts involved?
  • Larry Lannom's picture

    Author: Larry Lannom

    Date: 29 Nov, 2013

    Mark,
    I think its an excellent start and yes it will be difficult and will probably be a moving target for a while yet.
    o I assume that the intent of the commercial use restriction in the Terms of Use is to prevent someone from packaging up the material and selling it in some way. If that is the case I guess I agree with you that the language may need some work.
    o I don't think we need to make specific licensing recommendations in this document. That should be a separate document which can change while this one remains unchanged. General guidelines are a different matter.
    o I agree with Peter and Herman that the WG outputs and IG outputs are or should be quite different. If an IG needs to get specific on some topic it should form a short fused WG to do so. Otherwise I think they are approved to discuss a general area, not to take action that would result in a concrete recommendation.
    o The entire membership should be given a comment period but perhaps it goes in stages starting with TAB and WG/IG chairs, specifically to look at conflicts and overlaps.
    o Personal authorship - raises some interesting questions. If all RDA WG formal outputs (I seem to be resisting RoD - but I don't have anything better) are the product of a WG then isn't the WG the author? On the other hand some WG members may disagree with the results and object to having their name on the document. On balance I would vote for personal authorship and allow any WG member that agreed to add their name to the document. Perhaps Primary Authors and WG Members in Agreement or something like that.
    o I want to agree with your transparency recommendation -- but I doubt that "we told them the rules had changed and gave them the option to drop out if they didn't agree and they didn't respond so we took that as agreement" would pass muster. I think the whole transparency issue is one for the next phase.
    Sorry that I will miss the next meeting. Will look forward to the minutes.
    Larry

  • Mark Parsons's picture

    Author: Mark Parsons

    Date: 01 Dec, 2013

    Thanks Larry. I'm going to add these points as a comment to the document.

    When you say that we shouldn't make specific licensing recommendations in this document. Does that mean for the Implementations? I think we must specify a license/waiver for the RoD and probably the discussion documents. That was part of our charge.

     

     

  • Larry Lannom's picture

    Author: Larry Lannom

    Date: 02 Dec, 2013

    Mark,
    I only meant to recommend that specific license recommendations (use of CC such-and-such or Apache this or that or your own custom variation if needed for some reason) should be a separate policy document or set of such documents and that the output of this group be general requirements for same. So as not to conflate the general discussion/recommendations of output/ip with the pros and cons of specific licenses.
    Larry

  • Mark Parsons's picture

    Author: Mark Parsons

    Date: 02 Dec, 2013

    OK, I guess it can be two documents, but I think both documents are the charge of this task force. Agreed?
    cheers,

  • Gerald Lane's picture

    Author: Gerald Lane

    Date: 02 Dec, 2013

    My comments center on the transparency, avaialability and certainty.  Perhaps it is too early to address them, but I thought I'd capture them here:

    1) On the WG and IG side, we need to ensure any participant has the use or ownership rights needed to make a contribution. The assurance that it is either original thought or the owning party has agreed to permit contribution to RDA's  program of work .  I suspect this can be established in a revsion of the Participation Agreement.

    2) On the output side, I suggest we use a different term for document availibility. "Public domain" has specific meanings that I think are contrary to RDA providing stable, reliable and durable documents for long-term use by the research and academic communities.  I don't think we want the selected RDA documents to be changed outside of the described process.

submit a comment