[ENRIQUE ALONSO GARCIA]

Sorry, before , I pressed the “send” button unadvertedly before correcting tipos and re-Reading my own message.
The corrected message is the following :
Concerning this debate, it is obvious that not only these problems but many others arise when legal interoperability moves from access to data and easy and simple databases to accessing data through “open databases”, web services or e-infrastructures. When the second happens, new different issues of liability arise (or inevitably sprout immediately out of nothing).
I raised that question this summer (mid-end of July) saying that our principles had 2 gaps:
1) they do not distinguish between access to data, and access to software inextricably linked to the data that limits access to data if access to the software is restricted; and
2) a whole range of legal interoperability problems are not been considered: those raised in open databases (e.g. crowdsourcing-based data bases), web services (built upon one and specially upon 2 or more databases) and e-infrastructures.
The telecom of early August discarded getting into the subtleties that these aspects would imply. So now we have to live with principles on legal interoperability LIMITED to access to digital objects or for simple databases at the most.
These aspects disregarded by the RDA-CODATA IG under what I took to have been an intentional choice of our IG (because RDA-CODATA has a constant tendency to leave aside complex legal problems (“lawyerisly talk” or “lawyerisly language”) has not been so clear in GEO (whose DSPs and DMPs are more open and applicable also to more complex web services). For me it wqs so clear that we are addressing only the very basics of data sharing (scientific publications, collections from museums… maybe collections of pictures from satellites, …) that since early August I engaged in a parallel exercise out of the RDA-CODATA IG, working in parallel in other fora [with Chris Morris, with FAO, with the EU and the US fisheries data management, with the management of agricultural data, with DataOne, EGI, Globis-B, medical data…and other groups, in particular those that are starting to provide VREs (virtual research environments] on these other legal interoperability issues and problems because I am convinced that the self-limitation that the RDA-CODATA IG agreed to impose may allow us, at least, some minimum agreement on open access to scientific publications and other data sets built upon very basic organizational digital objects management structures (collections of digitized research data).
Let us focus on this only (maybe introducing a paragraph at the beginning clarifying the approach). And it makes sense to focus only in this first more simple type of set of problems around legal interoperability (the basics of data access and every simple uses of data) because, if we agree to the principles and their implementation, we will have solved the first basic phase or step which constitute the basics of the core information/foundation upon which, later -in a conceptual sense- more complex legal interoperability problems arise when those data sets become open or are the base upon which increasingly complex web services and e-infrastructures are built. So at least some basic legal interoperability problems will be solved in the first step of the dataflow chain so that they don´t add up as unsolved legal interoperability problems (on the basics) to the ever increasing legal interoperability complexity and “new” problems raised by open databases, web services and e-infrastructures.
Bernard´s article and a whole list of many other legal interoperability problems -totally different from those we have been discussing in the IG- arise when data are linked to specific software for their use (a high stakes issue for many scientists raised in July in the RDA Barcelona meeting: typical example: if data is georeferenced in an ESRI Arc GIS software, every individual scientist one has to spend 15,000 USD per year to access and reuse the data) as well as, in almost all open databases, when they are part of a web service and much more, an element of an e-infrastructure.
Are we all aware of this?
I ask this Q because the debate raised by Bernard´s article [I could send you dozens of similar articles in which equivalent legal interop types of problems are studied] seems to revive a debate I proposed us all to undertake by the end of July before continuing with the guidelines and that was set aside (perhaps prematurely under the summer heat; Paul I think this was one of the couple of them you could not participate) based on the argument (and subsequent common understanding) that the RDA-CODATA should be “scientists oriented” avoiding tackling these problems which are more “lawyers´ issues”.
I have no problem at all leaving them aside but the fact that they reemerge every now and then should make us think in introducing a paragraph at the very beginning saying that we are dealing only with the very basic legal interoperability problems of data sharing and that there are very many other types of legal interoperability issues when access to data takes place through non fully open source software, in open databases (public participated crowdsourced databases), web services or e-science infrastructures in which different legal interoperability bottlenecks or restrictions to data arise, none of which are addressed -at least as this stage- by these RDA-CODATA principles. If anybody wants a tentative list of “these other” legal interoperability issues I can supply such list so that he/she can better understand what I am talking about.
Take care you all,
Enrique
________________________________________
De: enrique.alonso=***@***.***-groups.org [enrique.alonso=***@***.***-groups.org] En nombre de enriquealonso [***@***.***-estado.es]
Enviado el: sábado, 14 de noviembre de 2015 14:37
Para: punkish; Jean-Bernard Minster; RDA/CODATA Legal Interoperability IG
Asunto: Re: [rda-legalinterop-ig] Food of thought
Concerning this debate, it is ibvious that not only this problems but many others arise when legal interoperability moves from simple access to data to and databases to open databases, web services or e-infrastructures, Issues of liability aruce (or literally srpout) in several areas in the web services and e-infrastructures. I raised that question this summer saying that our principles had 2 gaps: 1) they do not distinguish between Ac cess to data, and Access to software inextricably linked to the data that limits Access to data if Access to the software is restricted; and 2) a while range of legal interoperability problems raised in open databases (e.g. crowdsourcing-based data bases), web services (built upon one and specially upon 2 or more databases) and e-infrastructires. Th ¡e telecom of early Augist discarted getting into the subtleties these aspects would imply. So now we have to live with principles on dlegal interoperability LIMITED to access to digital objects.
These aspects disregarded by the RDA-CODATA IG under what I took to have been an intentional choice (because RDA-CODATA has a constant tendency to leave aside complex legal problems – “lawyerisly talk”) has not been so clear in GEO whose DSPs and DMPs are more open and applicable also to more complex web services; and since A¡early Augist then I have been working in parallel in other fora -with Chris Morris, FAO, the EU and the US fisheries data management, agricultural data DataOne, EGI, Globis-B, medical data…and other groups, in particular those that are startu’ing to provide VREs (virtual research environments) – on these other problems because I am convinced that the self-limitation that the RDA-CODATA IG agreed to may allow us, at least, some mínimum agreement on open access to scientific publications and other data sets built upon very basic organizational digital objects management structures (collections of digitized research data).
Let us focus on this only (maybe introducing a paragraph at the beginning clarifying the approach). And it makes sense to focus only in this fisrt pahse or basics of data Access and use because, if we agree to the principles and their implementaton, we will have solved the first basic phase or step which constitute the basics on the core information/fiundation upon which, later .in a conceptual sense- more complex legal interoperability problems arise when those dataset become open or the base upon which web services and e-infrastrcutures are built. So thsese inital problems will not be unsolved problems in the first step of the dataflow chain adding their unsolved legal interoperability problems (on the basics) to the ever increasing legal interoperability complexity of the “new” problems raised by open databases, web services and e-infrastrictures. Bernard´s article and a whole list of many other legal interoperability problems -totally different from those we have been
discussiong- arise when data are linked to specific software for their use (a higj stakes issue raised in July in the RDA Barcelona meeting) as well as in almost all open databases, web services and e-infrastructures are considered.
Are we all aware of this? because the debate raised by Bernard´s article [I could send you dozens of similar articles in which equivalent legal interop types of problems are studied] seems to revive a debate I proposed us all to undertake by the end of July before continuing with the guidelines and that was set aside (perhaps prematurely under the summer heat; Paul I think this was one of the couple of them you could not participate) based on the argument (and subsequent common understanding) that the RDA-CODATA should be “scientists oriented” avoiding tackling these problems which are more “lawyers´ issues”.
I have no problema at all leaving them aside but the fact that they reemerge every now and then should make us think in introducing a paragraph at the very beginning saying that we are dealing on’y with the very basic legal interoperability problems of data sharing and that there are very many other types of legal interoperability issues when access to data takes place through non fully open source software, in open databases (public participated crowdsourced databases), web services or e-science infrastructures in which different legal interoperability bottlenecks or restrictions to data arise, none of which are addressed -at least as this stage- by these RDA-CODATA principles. If you wat I can supply a list of such problems if antbody is interested simply in knowing which problema I am talking about.
Take care you all,
Enrique
.
________________________________________
De: punk.kish=***@***.***-groups.org [punk.kish=***@***.***-groups.org] En nombre de punkish [***@***.***]
Enviado el: sábado, 14 de noviembre de 2015 10:20
Para: Jean-Bernard Minster; RDA/CODATA Legal Interoperability IG
Asunto: Re: [rda-legalinterop-ig] Food of thought
The term is as broad as we want it to be. When we started this project, our goal was to ensure that the act of mixing different data sources would be legally permissible and not hindered because of restrictive use conditions of any one component data source. We were not concerned with the correctness of the result but that the result would be usable by all.
If we decide to expand the scope of the term, yes, it would be a can of worms, as you quoth verily, and oh, what a can it would be.
—
Puneet Kishor
Just Another Creative Commoner
http://punkish.org/About=
—
Full post:
https://rd-alliance.org/group/rdacodata-legal-interoperability-ig/post/f…
Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post:
https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/50413
El texto de este correo es confidencial y exclusivamente está dirigido a su destinatario. Si se ha enviado a una dirección errónea rogamos elimine el mismo y, en su caso, los documentos adjuntos, y nos lo comunique urgentemente. This message is intented only for the use of the addresse and contain confidential information. If you are not the intented recipient, dissemination of this documentation is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please, erase all copies of the message and its attachments and notify us immediately.
Antes de imprimir este correo electrónico, piense bien si es necesario hacerlo: El medioambiente es cosa de todos.
El texto de este correo es confidencial y exclusivamente está dirigido a su destinatario. Si se ha enviado a una dirección errónea rogamos elimine el mismo y, en su caso, los documentos adjuntos, y nos lo comunique urgentemente. This message is intented only for the use of the addresse and contain confidential information. If you are not the intented recipient, dissemination of this documentation is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please, erase all copies of the message and its attachments and notify us immediately.
Antes de imprimir este correo electrónico, piense bien si es necesario hacerlo: El medioambiente es cosa de todos.

Discussion