[Paul Uhlir]

Good points, Herbert, thanks.
Paul
– Show quoted text -From: GRUTTEMEIER, Herbert [***@***.***]
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 3:41 AM
To: Uhlir, Paul; ‘RDA/CODATA Legal Interoperability IG’
Subject: RE : [rda-legalinterop-ig] AW: [rda-legalinterop-ig] Legals Principles: What is to be the key message
Dear Paul et al.
I think that at the RDA breakout session we stated that the first results that came out of the discussion as potential principles could have been results of a broader working group on legal aspects of research data, not focused on interoperability. And then we remained in this broader scope. But in my opinion this is not really in line with the initial objectives, nor with the name of the group or the initial case statement, as far as I see (I wasn’t involved in the group from the beginning).
In the working group charter I read ” Develop and publish core principles and guidelines of best practices through which legal interoperability can be achieved”, maybe we should try to stick to this. And review the draft principles from this point of view. A principle like ‘harmonization’ , for example, would then become an essential one, to which a list of best practices could be associated.
Regards,
Herbert
PS: I was on last Friday’s call.
[cid:***@***.***]
Herbert Gruttemeier
International Relations
Inist – CNRS
2, allée du Parc de Brabois
54519 Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy
France
tél : 33(0)3 83 50 47 59
33(0)6 87 43 84 01
Von: puhlir=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] Im Auftrag von puhlir
Gesendet: Montag, 12. Januar 2015 15:47ukts
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, b! ut 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
________________________________
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 p! ost: 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/46942
Good points, Herbert, thanks.
Paul
________________________________
From: GRUTTEMEIER, Herbert [***@***.***]
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 3:41 AM
To: Uhlir, Paul; ‘RDA/CODATA Legal Interoperability IG’
Subject: RE : [rda-legalinterop-ig] AW: [rda-legalinterop-ig] Legals Principles: What is to be the key message
Dear Paul et al.
I think that at the RDA breakout session we stated that the first results that came out of the discussion as potential principles could have been results of a broader working group on legal aspects of research data, not focused on interoperability. And then we remained in this broader scope. But in my opinion this is not really in line with the initial objectives, nor with the name of the group or the initial case statement, as far as I see (I wasn’t involved in the group from the beginning).
In the working group charter I read ” Develop and publish core principles and guidelines of best practices through which legal interoperability can be achieved”, maybe we should try to stick to this. And review the draft principles from this point of view. A principle like ‘harmonization’ , for example, would then become an essential one, to which a list of best practices could be associated.
Regards,
Herbert
PS: I was on last Friday’s call.
[cid:***@***.***]
Herbert Gruttemeier
International Relations
Inist – CNRS
2, allée du Parc de Brabois
54519 Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy
France
tél : 33(0)3 83 50 47 59
33(0)6 87 43 84 01
Von: puhlir=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] Im Auftrag von puhlir
Gesendet: Montag, 12. Januar 2015 15:47ukts
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, b! ut 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 p! ost: 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/46942

Discussion