[Christoph Bruch]

Dear All,
I would like to add to the argument I presented in my mail earlier today.
Currently our declaration reads like a political statement.
This results in a risk that not all stakeholder we intend to reach feel
addressed.
I suggest we consider which stakeholder groups we want to address and what
we hope these addressees are to use our statement for.
We could possible distinguish our demands by relating them to various
stakeholder groups, e.g.:
Politicians as lawmaker -> copyright
Politicians/public administration employees as funders -> open data policy,
long term funding of research data infrastructures
Private funder – open data policy, long term funding of research data
infrastructures
Research managers at universities and research institutions -> open data
policy + implementation plan
Researchers -> decide to make their data available, develop skills – in
cooperation with experts – enhancing data enabling reuse
Librarians -> They have a special role as cannot fund, but will possibly
receive funds. Their expertise is needed for data curation, they sometimes
face an “image problem” from the perspective of the research community .
Regards,
Christoph
Christoph Bruch
Helmholtz Association
Helmholtz Open Science Coordination Office
W: http://oa.helmholtz.de
M: +49 (0)151 14 09 39 68
Von: puhlir=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] Im
Auftrag von puhlir
Gesendet: Montag, 12. Januar 2015 15:47
An: Christoph Bruch; ‘RDA/CODATA Legal Interoperability IG’
Betreff: Re: [rda-legalinterop-ig] Legals Principles: What is to be the key
message
You raise very good points, Christoph. The first version that I drafted in
Amsterdam was focused on legal interoperability, but the preponderance of
the discussion at the RDA breakout there was to broaden the scope. I think
you make a good argument about the redundancy of the open access and use,
however. There are many such statements and declarations already and we need
to consider carefully what value we are adding. Legal interoperability is
also the name of our group and ptresumably our focus. I think subsequent
reviewers will point this out.
If we define interoperability in the Preamble, as originally planned, we
could refocus the Principles to assist in better promoting that function,
which has not been well adressed yet. What does everyone else think?
Thanks,
Paul
_____
– Show quoted text -From: Christoph Bruch [***@***.***]
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 7:03 AM
To: Uhlir, Paul; ‘RDA/CODATA Legal Interoperability IG’
Subject: Legals Principles: What is to be the key message
Dear All,
During our telephone conference last Friday we talk about whether openness
or balance should be prioritizes in term of order of the principles.
I believe that our uncertainty concerning the order of the 8 principles is
at least partly due fact that we not have a common understanding of the key
message of our declaration.
In the title “International Access and Reuse of Research Data: Eight Legal
Principles” we refer to legal principles, which will be commonly understood
as relating to codified law.
In our conversation we agreed that we have a broader understanding of this
term encompassing soft law.
If we stick to this meaning we should reconsider the title.
Our Interest Group is on legal interoperability.
The term is not mentioned in the headlines of the principles.
1. Balance. [Balance the interests.]
2. Access and reuse. [Facilitate access to and reuse of data.]
3. Harmonization. [Promote harmonization.]
4. Attribution. [Reaffirm the value of attribution.]
5. Restrictions. [Limit restrictions.]
6. Responsibilities of researchers. [Encourage individual
responsibility.]
7. Transparency and certainty. [State legal rights clearly.]
8. Equity. [Promote equity.]
Harmonization obviously has great overlap with interoperability.
From my perspective a yet not decided question is whether the key message of
our declaration is on open or on interoperability.
In in current form the declaration is addresses the general topic openness
more that sub-topic interoperability.
If we decide to stick to the emphasis on the general topic openness we need
to answer, at least internally, why we believe we need yet another statement
on this.
If we decide focus the statement on interoperability it according to my
understanding correspond much more with the core aim of RDA which is about
practical solutions enabling data sharing.
Openness is obviously a prerequisite for this.
I believe RDA is based on the commonly held persuasion that research data
should be publicly available for reuse, of course after balancing with other
values, e.g. personal privacy, security.
So openness is a given.
The aim of our principle should be to give guidance to policy and law makers
that the rules set by them support interoperability.
This focus would not imply a major change in the set of principles we have
agreed on so far.
We would however change the wording in way to emphasize the our key message:
interoperability.
Paul, please excuse I do not accompany this with a draft of the principles
reflecting my thoughts.
Regards,
Christoph
Christoph Bruch
Helmholtz Association
Helmholtz Open Science Coordination Office
W: http://oa.helmholtz.de
M: +49 (0)151 14 09 39 68
Von: puhlir=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] Im
Auftrag von puhlir
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 8. Januar 2015 16:51
An: RDA/CODATA Legal Interoperability IG
Betreff: [rda-legalinterop-ig] Call-in instructions for Legal
Interoperability group call tomorrow, January 9
Dear Colleagues,
In preparation for the call tomorrow, I would like to provide the call in
logistics and the agenda for the call. I still have not resolved the
conferencing issue online. Therefore, please call in to a conferencing
service (toll-free in the US), Conference America:
Dial: +1 888 537 7715
Partcipant Code: 23350459#
For participants outside the US, the call is NOT toll free, so please use
your Skype or other low-cost international system.
In this call, we will have a general discussion of:
1. The draft Legal Principles themselves.
2. A completion of the discussion of other groups that have addressed
similar data law issues that need to be brought into the conversation or
review.
3. Your general comments on the subsidiary document of Guidelines that
explains the issues behind the Principles.
Please also access the RDA website, go to the Legal Interoperability
Interest Group home page, and click on the “Group Wiki” button on the
right-hand side. The most recent draft of the Principles document is
available there for discussion and your input. At the end you will find a
list of other statements, declarations, and principles that we will link to
in the Preamble, so please take a look.
Thanks,
Paul
—
Full post:
https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/rdacodata-legal-interoperability-ig/po…
all-instructions-legal-interoperability-group-call
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post:
https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/46942

Discussion